Court blocks auction of 14 Riverside Drive property in Ksh.577M dispute

Dzuya Walter
By Dzuya Walter October 08, 2026 01:34 (EAT)
Add as a Preferred Source on Google
Court blocks auction of 14 Riverside Drive property in Ksh.577M dispute
Vocalize Pre-Player Loader

Audio By Vocalize

The High Court has stopped the planned auction of a property at Nairobi's 14 Riverside Drive complex after declaring the auction process defective and invalid.

Justice Moses Ado ruled in favour of Cape Holdings, setting aside the warrants and auction notices that had paved the way for the sale of the property following a long-running commercial dispute with Synergy Industrial Credit Limited.

The court also dismissed an objection by Synergy challenging its jurisdiction and ordered allegations made by the company against the court to be expunged from the record.

The ruling means that any fresh attempt to auction the property must begin afresh, with the reserve price determined by the court.

The dispute dates back to 2010 and revolves around a property transaction involving the purchase of an office block within the Riverside development.

Synergy had paid approximately Ksh.577 million as a deposit towards the purchase before the transaction collapsed.

The company subsequently sought a refund, arguing that delays in completing the development had frustrated the agreement.

Cape Holdings disputed the claims, maintaining that the delays were partly attributable to design changes requested by Synergy.

The disagreement escalated into a protracted legal battle, eventually resulting in attempts to recover the disputed funds through the auction of the property.

Cape Holdings challenged the auction process, arguing that the procedures leading to the intended sale had not complied with legal requirements.

In his determination, Justice Ado found the process defective and invalid, consequently setting aside the warrants and auction notices.

The decision halts the planned sale of the property but does not resolve the underlying dispute between the two companies.

Any subsequent attempt to auction the property will have to comply with the court's directions, including the requirement that the reserve price be fixed by the court.

Join the Discussion

Share your perspective with the Citizen Digital community.

Moderation applies

Sign In to Publish

No comments yet

This discussion is waiting for your voice. Be the first to share your thoughts!