Court certifies as urgent Infinity Industrial Park's case against Bank of Baroda

Dzuya Walter
By Dzuya Walter August 27, 2026 11:20 (EAT)
Add as a Preferred Source on Google
Court certifies as urgent Infinity Industrial Park's case against Bank of Baroda
Vocalize Pre-Player Loader

Audio By Vocalize

The High Court has certified as urgent an application by Infinity Industrial Park Limited accusing Bank of Baroda (Kenya) Limited of violating existing court orders by appointing administrators over the company.

The application has been filed in the High Court at Milimani by an intended interested party, Ashokkumar Rupshi Shah, in a case pitting Infinity Industrial Park Limited against Bank of Baroda (Kenya) Limited.

The applicant claims that on September 8, 2025, the court entered default judgment in favour of Infinity Industrial Park, including an order permanently restraining the bank from advertising for sale, selling, disposing of or otherwise interfering with the company's property known as L.R. No. 31978, along the Eastern Bypass in Nairobi.

According to the application, the bank later moved to court seeking to set aside the judgment.

However, on July 31, 2026, the court dismissed that application, finding that the bank had participated in the proceedings, had been given an opportunity to file its defence, but failed to comply with court directions.

The applicant now claims that barely ten days after the ruling, the bank purportedly appointed Ponangipalli Venkata Ramana Rao and Swaroop Rao Ponangipalli as joint administrators over the whole property and affairs of Infinity Industrial Park.

The application alleges that the two administrators moved in the following day, August 11, demanding possession and control of the company's assets, title documents, books and records, while also seeking to displace the authority of the company's directors.

The applicant argues that the move risks interfering with the company's ability to enforce the judgment against the bank, including formal proof proceedings and other enforcement processes.

The court has now allowed the matter to be heard during the court recess and directed the respondents to be served and file their responses within three days.

The court has also granted prayer three of the application pending further directions on September 1, 2026.

The applicant is asking the court to intervene, arguing that unless urgent orders are issued, the alleged administrators could interfere with or deal with the company's affairs and assets in a manner that could undermine the existing judgment.

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!