One creditor relied on an arbitral award and steps already taken against development property. A bank asserted security and the protection of administration. The court had to examine the order of events and the particular rights claimed, rather than assume that administration automatically stopped everything.
I&M Bank Kenya Limited & another v Synergy Industrial Credit Limited & 2 others [2024] KECA 855 (KLR) concerns consolidated Civil Appeals E758 and E788 of 2021. The official page metadata identifies the Court of Appeal judgment as 12 July 2024; its dated judicial signing block is absent from the retained captures.
It dismissed both appeals and the motions seeking to strike out Synergy's material, with costs to Synergy.
The property transaction had become an enforcement dispute
The proceedings arose from an aborted development-property transaction in Nairobi, an arbitral award and competing efforts to execute or invoke administration (paragraphs 1–17).
The 2024 appeal was not a fresh determination of the original sale contract or the amount awarded by the arbitrator. It concerned the ability to continue execution and the priority asserted over the property.
The record included an existing caveat, a prohibitory order and the bank's claimed security. Each had to be considered in its legal and factual setting.
That sequence matters because a later step in insolvency proceedings does not answer what interests or execution steps already existed.
Attachment had already occurred
The Court of Appeal held that attachment had been completed through registration of the prohibitory order. On that basis, it regarded the appeals as moot (paragraphs 73–76).
The court nevertheless considered the merits. It upheld the trial judge's discretion allowing Synergy to continue execution notwithstanding the administration moratorium (paragraphs 77–99).
Those are separate parts of the reasoning. The court did not simply assume that an administrator's appointment had eliminated the judgment creditor's position, nor did it treat the appeal as an opportunity to reconsider every aspect of the original arbitration.
The bank's priority argument depended on this record
The court rejected the bank's asserted priority on the evidence before it. Its reasoning addressed the claimed security, existing protections over the land and what it found to be bad-faith use of administration (paragraphs 82–89 and 100–105).
Those adverse findings must remain attributed to the court and confined to this dispute. They are not a general rule that a floating charge is ineffective or that seeking administration is inherently improper.
A lender's claimed priority still requires an examination of the instrument, timing and competing rights. The label attached to the security cannot replace that analysis.
Attachment was not a completed sale
A later ruling, [2026] KECA 385 (KLR), identified as 27 February 2026 in its retained source URL, dismissed two interim applications with costs to Synergy (paragraph 59). It was not a merits determination of the intended appeals.
Paragraphs 10–11 recount the High Court lifting existing warrants, requiring an independent professional valuation by a valuer appointed by Synergy within 30 days of that order at Cape Holdings' expense, and staying the auction pending presentation of that report and fresh lawful warrants. That earlier ruling made no costs order on those applications. Paragraphs 54 and 57–58 preserve the distinction between attachment and lawful realisation.
An attached property is therefore not necessarily a sold property. Neither the 2024 judgment nor that later distinction establishes that an auction, transfer or payment was completed.
In [2026] KESC 26 (KLR), whose body is dated 24 March 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed certification review in the related arbitral-award branch, upheld the refusal of certification and ordered the applicant to bear costs (paragraphs 13–14). That was not a direct merits appeal from the creditor-priority judgment.
Questions when several creditors claim the same land
- What security and execution instruments existed before administration?
- Which steps were completed, and what legal effect did each have?
- Is the court permitting execution, deciding priority or determining an actual sale?
- Does a later application belong to the same appellate branch or a different part of the litigation?
A Kenyan advocate should trace those distinctions through the instruments and orders. “Under administration”, “attached” and “sold” are not interchangeable descriptions of property status.
The source contains inconsistent historical dates and parcel digits. This account does not reconcile them into a present registration history or calculate a current enforcement deadline.
Review screening scope before relying on it
Review ArdhiScore's described screening scope before deciding whether it fits your enquiry. Screening cannot determine creditor priority, provide automatic stay protection, certify title or boundaries, or replace an official search and Kenyan legal advice. It does not guarantee detection of every relevant record.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits.
Source-review hold: Independent local review on 11 September 2026 read all retained judicial text, but all three decisions lack their judicial headers; both Court of Appeal captures also lack signed, dated closings. HTML metadata is not a judicial header. This historical draft remains held, not legal advice or present property status. No fresh history search or exhaustive litigation review was performed.
Primary decisions
Read the 2024 judgment: paragraphs 55–76, 77–99 and 100–108. February 2026 ruling: paragraphs 54–59. March 2026 Supreme Court ruling: paragraphs 10–14.