Court stops auction of Riverside property over claims of defective execution documents
The High Court has nullified the planned auction of the prime 14 Riverside Drive property after finding that the execution documents used to facilitate the sale were defective and invalid. Justice Moses Ado set aside the warrants of sale, notification of sale and the auctioneer’s notice and advertisement, directing that any fresh attempt to sell [...] The post Court stops auction of Riverside…
The High Court has blocked the planned auction of the prime 14 Riverside Drive property due to the issuance of defective execution documents, according to a ruling by Justice Moses Ado. The court quashed the warrants of sale, sale notifications, and auctioneer's notice and advertisement, instructing that any future attempts to sell the property must start anew and conform strictly to legal procedures.
This decision came after Cape Holdings Ltd., the registered owner of the property, submitted an urgent application on May 22, 2026, just four days before the scheduled auction. The court issued interim orders on May 23, halting the sale pending resolution of objections raised by Cape Holdings regarding the execution process. Justice Ado identified four defects in the execution instruments signed on March 16, 2026.
He ruled that the warrant of sale lacked a court-set reserve price, a mandatory safeguard under the Auctioneers Rules which the judge deemed insufficiently addressed by the existence of a valuation report alone. The reserve price, he explained, is a mandatory minimum figure set by the court under Order 22, Rule 57, to prevent sales at undervalued prices.
The judge also pointed out that the execution documents failed to disclose four registered long leases affecting the property, describing this omission as a material irregularity that could lead to the invalidation of any sale. Moreover, the warrant was found to be issued without a fresh terms of sale agreement following previous set-asides in June 2025.
The auctioneer was also found guilty of not preparing and serving the required Form 4 Notification of Sale, which specifies the property's value under Rule 15B of the Auctioneers Rules. Justice Ado dismissed Synergy Credit's challenge to the court's jurisdiction over the matter, citing Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act which grants the High Court exclusive jurisdiction to determine the execution of its decrees.
Cape Holdings welcomed the decision, stating that the court affirmed the lawfulness of any sale process, while Synergy intends to appeal the ruling.
Written by urgent.news from KahawaTungu's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
