(NAIROBI, KENYA) – A legal fight over control of a multi-billion shilling industrial park on Nairobi’s Eastern Bypass has intensified between Bank of Baroda Kenya and Infinity Industrial Park.
The dispute began with a KES1.976 billion ($15.2 million / £12.1 million) loan issued to Infinity in 2019. It has since grown into competing claims of default, damages, delayed release of charged land and a recent attempt by the bank to place Infinity under administration.
Infinity says the bank’s actions have disrupted its operations, damaged its reputation and undermined efforts to attract fresh investment into the industrial park.
The bank maintains that Infinity defaulted on its loan obligations and that it was entitled to exercise its rights as a secured lender.
The latest phase of the dispute followed the appointment of joint administrators on 10th August, 2026. Infinity subsequently obtained interim orders that resulted in the administrators leaving the premises on 27th August.
The company is now awaiting further directions from the High Court, with another hearing scheduled for 5th October. A separate application to cite the bank’s directors with contempt of court is also pending.
The loan was advanced in 2019 to finance the development of Infinity Industrial Park, including infrastructure and warehouses at Njiru on the Eastern Bypass. The facility was secured against several properties, including the industrial park land.
Infinity managing director and chairman Ashok Rupshi Shah said in court documents that the company borrowed the money when the economy was performing strongly and proceeded with the first phase of the project despite disruption caused by Covid-19.
Court documents show Infinity completed the first phase in 2021 despite the pandemic and continued servicing the facility using income from other sources and proceeds from the sale of other assets.
By December 2023, the company said it had repaid about KES500 million ($3.9 million / £3.1 million) in principal and approximately KES800 million ($6.2 million / £4.9 million) in interest.
However, the pandemic, followed by the 2022 election year, disrupted the company’s cash flows and projections.
Shah said Infinity subsequently sought restructuring of the facility and additional financing to develop more warehouses, but the requests were not approved.
The company claims that failure to obtain a partial discharge of about 15 acres, including 10 acres earmarked for a second cluster of warehouses, prevented it from securing additional financing for the development.
Infinity says the second cluster would have comprised 50 warehouses and generated additional cash flow of about KES2 billion ($15.4 million / £12.2 million).
The company also alleges that the bank delayed for about 14 months in discharging a title after a change of user had been approved, preventing it from transferring warehouses that had already been sold and restricting its ability to generate revenue.
The bank disputed the allegations in earlier proceedings, arguing that Infinity was in default and that the lender was entitled to retain the security until the debt was repaid.
In one of the applications, the bank said Infinity had failed to pay KES55.94 million ($430,000 / £340,000) in interest on time, causing the facility to become non-performing.
The court at that stage found that the loan and charge documents entitled the bank to hold the security until the debt was settled. It also held that Infinity’s allegations concerning delays involved contested facts that should be determined at trial rather than through an interim application.
The court declined to order the release of land or withdrawal of credit listings, noting that such orders amounted to mandatory injunctions requiring an unusually strong and clear case.
Infinity later filed a separate suit in June 2024 seeking damages from the bank.
According to court records, the bank did not file its defence within the prescribed period despite several court appearances and reminders. On 8th September, 2025, the High Court entered default judgment in favour of Infinity in terms of prayers in its plaint, including a claim for special damages of about KES2.996 billion ($23 million / £18.3 million).
Bank of Baroda subsequently applied to have the judgment set aside but the application was dismissed on 31st July, 2026. The court found that the bank had been given an opportunity to file its defence but failed to comply before the pre-trial conference.
The bank had argued that its intended defence raised triable issues concerning, among other matters, a replacement charge over the industrial park property, the amount secured and a statutory notice relating to a KES2 billion ($15.4 million / £12.2 million) claim.
The court, however, held that the existence of triable issues did not by itself justify reopening the case.
Infinity says the judgment also contained a permanent injunction restraining the bank from advertising for sale, selling or disposing of the Njiru property, taking possession of it, appointing receivers or administrators, or otherwise interfering with the property.
The company argues that the bank subsequently breached the order when it issued an insolvency notice on 10th August, 2026 and appointed Ponangipalli Venkata Ramana Rao and Swaroop Rao Ponangipalli as joint administrators.
Shah said in an affidavit that the appointment was made despite the bank’s knowledge of the subsisting judgment and court order, and barely ten days after its application to set aside the judgment was dismissed. He said the appointment was in direct contravention of the default judgment.
The administrators entered the industrial park on 11th August and took possession of Infinity’s offices and records, according to the company.
In its application, Infinity says its employees were immediately terminated and that its offices were locked, disrupting services to the 31 companies operating within the industrial park.
The company claims the takeover caused significant reputational damage, particularly after notices were published indicating that the industrial park was under administration.
The administrators remained at the property for about 17 days as the parties returned to court.
Infinity subsequently challenged the appointment and sought orders restoring the previous position.
Shah said the alleged administrators asserted control over the company’s affairs, demanded possession and control of its assets, title documents, books and records, displaced the authority of its directors and took steps affecting its employees. He said this demonstrated that the appointment was being actively implemented.
In a ruling concerning a preliminary objection, the court held that the appointment of the administrators had taken legal effect upon the lodging of the notice on 11th August.
However, the court declined to strike out Infinity’s challenge altogether, instead allowing the company to withdraw the application and file a properly instituted application.
The court said fairness demands that the company be given the opportunity to have its grievance heard properly. It extended a lifeline to the company, allowing it to withdraw the present application and file a proper one, correctly instituted, within 14 days.
The court said the underlying issues surrounding the validity of the appointment remained open for determination.
Infinity has separately argued that the appointment was made in breach of the earlier injunction and has sought to have Bank of Baroda’s directors and the administrators cited for contempt.
The company says the bank relied on an alleged debt of about KES2.2 billion ($16.9 million / £13.4 million) to justify the administration, despite Infinity holding a judgment for special damages of about KES2.996 billion ($23 million / £18.3 million) against the lender.
Shah, who is also the majority shareholder, says he has a personal interest in the dispute because he guaranteed loans advanced to the company.
He argues that the administration would have deprived him of the benefits of the judgment and affected his obligations arising from the guarantees.
Infinity says the industrial park currently supports about 1,000 jobs, with the potential to create about 20,000 direct jobs and 50,000 indirect jobs when fully occupied.
The company estimates the value of the property at more than KES10 billion ($76.9 million / £61 million), based on a valuation commissioned by the bank, against an outstanding debt that it puts at about KES1.5 billion ($11.5 million / £9.2 million).
Bank of Baroda has denied the characterisation of the dispute, maintaining that the company remains indebted to the lender and that its rights as a secured creditor have not been extinguished by the court proceedings.