Court of Appeal upholds High Court decision in Cytonn Kilimani property dispute
The court ruled that although the dispute involved land, the underlying and predominant issue was insolvency, placing the matter squarely within the High Court's purview.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Cytonn Investment Partners Sixteen LLP and Cytonn Investment Management PLC (CIM) challenging orders that directed them to vacate three prime Kilimani properties vested in the Official Receiver following the liquidation of Cytonn High Yield Solutions (CHYS).
In a judgment delivered on November 21, 2025, a three-judge bench comprising Justices Patrick Kiage, Jamila Mohammed, and George Odunga upheld the High Court's finding that it had jurisdiction to issue eviction and repossession orders arising from the liquidation process.
The court ruled that although the dispute involved land, the underlying and predominant issue was insolvency, placing the matter squarely within the High Court's purview.
The appeal stemmed from a July 26, 2024, decision in which High Court Judge Florence Mugambi ordered the eviction of Cytonn directors, including CEO Edwin Dande, from properties known as L.R. Nos. 2/85, 2/86, and 2/87, collectively referred to as the Kilimani properties.
Justice Mugambi found that the Official Receiver had taken possession of the properties in December 2023 after vesting orders were issued, but Cytonn officials had later forcefully retaken the premises.
The appellants argued that only the Environment and Land Court (ELC) could issue eviction orders and insisted that they were solvent entities not subject to liquidation.
They further submitted that the Official Receiver had violated mandatory provisions of the Land Act by failing to issue three-month eviction notices. Additionally, they claimed that the Court of Appeal's earlier orders directing the maintenance of the status quo barred any eviction or repossession.
However, the appellate bench dismissed these arguments, affirming that insolvency proceedings, under which the vesting orders were made, fall exclusively under the High Court's jurisdiction.
The judges cited the "predominant issue" doctrine, which allows a court to determine all issues incidental to a matter within its primary jurisdiction, even if such issues touch on areas ordinarily handled by other courts.
The court underscored that the vesting of the Kilimani properties into the liquidation estate of CHYS was part of a lawful effort to recover funds for investors. It rejected the appellants' claims that the Official Receiver had acted unlawfully, stating that any dispute regarding notices under the Land Act would be addressed in substantive challenges to the vesting orders—not in the interim enforcement application before Justice Mugambi.
On the issue of compliance with Court of Appeal orders issued on December 27, 2023, the bench agreed with Justice Mugambi's interpretation that the directive suspended further execution of the vesting orders but did not reverse steps already taken. At that time, the Official Receiver was already in possession of the Kilimani properties.
The judges concluded that the High Court acted properly in ordering the reinstatement of the Official Receiver's possession and directing police assistance to enforce the orders, noting that the appellants had forcibly displaced guards stationed at the premises.
Finding no error in the High Court's reasoning or orders, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety and awarded costs to the Official Receiver.
Top Stories Today
