The Supreme Court has suspended the sale and transfer of Cytonn-linked properties valued at approximately Sh11 billion, granting conservatory orders that preserve the assets pending the hearing and determination of a constitutional appeal filed by several Cytonn-related companies.
In a ruling delivered on July 3, a five-judge bench comprising Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu and Justices Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko barred the Official Receiver from implementing vesting orders that would have paved the way for the disposal of the properties.
At the same time, the apex court dismissed a preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction and allowed the CHYS Creditors’ Committee and SBM Bank Kenya Limited to join the proceedings as interested parties.
The appeal was filed by Cytonn Investments Partners Four LLP together with six related entities following a November 2025 decision by the Court of Appeal that upheld orders vesting several prime properties in the Official Receiver. The companies contend that although they are separate and solvent entities, their assets were improperly brought under insolvency proceedings arising from the collapse of Cytonn’s high-yield investment schemes.
Before the Supreme Court, the Official Receiver argued that the dispute was purely commercial in nature and therefore fell outside the court’s constitutional jurisdiction. According to the Receiver, the appeal revolved around insolvency law and did not raise any constitutional questions capable of invoking the Supreme Court’s appellate mandate.
However, the five-judge bench rejected that argument, finding that the appeal raises substantial constitutional issues touching on the right to property under Article 40 and the right to a fair hearing under Article 50 of the Constitution.
“We are persuaded that despite it having been challenged as a commercial dispute, the same raises constitutional questions worthy of our assumption of jurisdiction,” the judges ruled.
Having found that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, the court proceeded to consider whether conservatory orders were warranted.
The judges observed that the appeal was arguable and warned that allowing the Official Receiver to proceed with the valuation, transfer or sale of the disputed properties before the appeal is heard could render the entire case nugatory.
“Examining the nature of the suit properties and having assumed jurisdiction over the appeal, we are inclined towards preservation of the suit properties particularly noting that this is the final court whose decision would conclusively set out the parties’ legal position,” the bench stated.
The court further found that the balance of convenience and public interest weighed heavily in favour of maintaining the status quo, noting that the dispute affects thousands of investors, creditors and other stakeholders. Consequently, the Supreme Court issued conservatory orders restraining the Official Receiver from implementing the vesting orders until the constitutional appeal is fully heard and determined.
Meanwhile, the court allowed applications by the CHYS Creditors’ Committee, which represents more than 3,000 creditors, and SBM Bank Kenya Limited, a secured creditor over the Alma development in Ruaka, to participate in the proceedings as interested parties.
The judges observed that both parties had actively participated in the proceedings before the High Court and the Court of Appeal and stood to be directly affected by the outcome of the dispute.
The conservatory orders cover several high-value developments, including Alma in Ruaka, Mystic Plains and Newtown, Riverrun in Ruiru, Taraji, The Ridge, Applewood in Karen and a number of properties in Kilimani.
The dispute stems from the collapse of Cytonn’s investment schemes around 2021, after which the Official Receiver was appointed liquidator to recover assets for the benefit of investors and creditors. The Court of Appeal subsequently cleared the way for the Official Receiver to assume control of the disputed properties and begin the liquidation process.
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling, however, temporarily freezes that process, preserving the assets until it determines whether vesting orders issued under the Insolvency Act can lawfully extend to property belonging to solvent third-party companies.
The court directed that the costs of the applications will abide the outcome of the main appeal.
