Kenya High Court: Infinity Industrial Park Bank of Baroda Administrators Challenged

• The High Court in Nairobi has certified as urgent a case alleging Bank of Baroda breached court orders by appointing administrators for Infinity Industrial Park.
• Ashokkumar Rupshi Shah, an intended interested party, challenges the appointment of Ponangipalli Venkata Ramana Rao and Swaroop Rao Ponangipalli as joint administrators.
• This dispute follows a September 8, 2025, judgment that permanently restrained Bank of Baroda from interfering with Infinity Industrial Park's property, a ruling the bank unsuccessfully tried to overturn on July 31, 2026.
• The alleged administrators entered Infinity Industrial Park's premises on August 11, demanding control of assets and affairs, which the applicant argues undermines judgment enforcement.
• The court has ordered respondents to file replies within three days and will provide further directions on September 1, 2026, regarding the administrators' actions.

The applicant argues that this move directly threatens Infinity Industrial Park's capacity to enforce the judgment it had already secured against the bank.

The Milimani High Court in Nairobi has recently certified an urgent application concerning an ongoing legal battle between Infinity Industrial Park Limited and Bank of Baroda (Kenya) Limited. The core of the dispute revolves around allegations that Bank of Baroda has acted in direct contravention of existing court orders by proceeding with the appointment of administrators to oversee the affairs and assets of Infinity Industrial Park. This development has prompted an urgent intervention from Ashokkumar Rupshi Shah, who has filed an application as an intended interested party.

Shah's application specifically challenges the legitimacy of the appointment of Ponangipalli Venkata Ramana Rao and Swaroop Rao Ponangipalli as joint administrators. According to the applicant, these individuals were appointed over Infinity Industrial Park's property and operations. The application details that on August 11, the alleged administrators entered the company's premises, demanding access to and control over its assets, including title documents, financial records, and other corporate books. They are further accused of attempting to usurp the authority of the company's directors and assume full control of its business operations, deepening the `Kenya corporate administrators dispute`.

This latest legal maneuver by Bank of Baroda follows a significant judgment issued on September 8, 2025, which favored Infinity Industrial Park. The court had entered this judgment after the bank failed to adhere to specific court directions during the proceedings. Crucially, this judgment permanently prohibited Bank of Baroda from any actions that would advertise for sale, sell, dispose of, or otherwise interfere with Infinity Industrial Park's property, specifically identified as L.R. No. 31978, situated along the Eastern Bypass in Nairobi.

Following this adverse ruling, Bank of Baroda sought to have the judgment overturned, filing an application to set it aside. However, this attempt was unsuccessful, with the court dismissing the bank's application on July 31, 2026. The court's decision highlighted that the bank had actively participated in the legal process and had been afforded ample opportunity to present its defense but ultimately failed to comply with the directives issued throughout the case. This history underscores the existing `Bank of Baroda breach court orders Kenya` context.

Ashokkumar Rupshi Shah contends that the appointment of the `Infinity Industrial Park Bank of Baroda administrators` occurred shortly after the July 31, 2026, ruling that upheld the original judgment. The applicant argues that this move directly threatens Infinity Industrial Park's capacity to enforce the judgment it had already secured against the bank. The alleged actions of the administrators, including their demands for control and possession, could severely undermine the legal protections afforded to Infinity Industrial Park.

Furthermore, Shah's application highlights that the administrators' intervention could negatively impact ongoing legal proceedings, including formal proof processes and the broader enforcement of the court's judgment. The core concern is that by attempting to seize control, the administrators could render the existing court orders ineffective, thereby impeding the rightful execution of the `Infinity Industrial Park judgment enforcement`. This situation presents a critical challenge to the authority of judicial directives in Kenya.

Recognizing the gravity and urgency of the situation, the High Court has permitted the application to be heard during the court recess. This decision reflects the court's acknowledgment of the immediate threat posed by the alleged actions of the administrators. In response to the `Milimani High Court urgent application`, the respondents, including Bank of Baroda, have been directed to submit their responses within three days.

The court also granted the third prayer requested in the application, with further directions expected on September 1, 2026. The applicant is seeking judicial intervention to prevent the alleged administrators from engaging with Infinity Industrial Park's affairs and assets in any manner that could jeopardize or nullify the existing judgment. The upcoming court date on September 1, 2026, will be crucial for addressing the contentious issue surrounding the administrators and the alleged defiance of previous court orders by `Ashokkumar Rupshi Shah Bank of Baroda` dispute.

This case serves as a critical reminder for financial institutions and their legal counsel regarding the severe implications of defying court orders, particularly concerning judgment enforcement and the appointment of administrators. Lawyers should advise clients on the procedural avenues available for urgent intervention when such breaches occur, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to judicial directives.

Source: Reporting based on recent court filings and news reports.