Cape Holdings will appeal a High Court ruling in its debt dispute with Synergy Industrial Credit, in a case involving a liability that has grown from Sh570 million to more than Sh10.6 billion and is linked to the 14 Riverside Drive complex.

Justice Patricia Mande Nyaundi ruled that the issues raised in Cape Holdings’ constitutional petition had already been addressed by other courts.

However, the company maintains that its petition raises constitutional questions that have not been conclusively determined, including whether interest should have continued to accumulate during a period when an arbitral award against it had been set aside.

The award was set aside in March 2016 before being reinstated in November 2020 following an appeal. Cape Holdings argues that interest should not have accrued during the four years and eight months when the award was not in force.

The company is also challenging legal provisions that exclude court judgment debts from the in duplum rule, which limits the amount of interest that can accumulate on certain loans. It argues that the exclusion is unconstitutional.

Cape Holdings further disputes the enforcement of the debt against the entire 14 Riverside Drive complex, whose value it estimates at Sh7.3 billion based on figures from October 2025.

The company argues that the original transaction involved only one block of the development, raising questions about whether the entire complex should be used to recover the debt.

The dispute is separate from a ruling delivered on October 8, 2026, by the High Court’s Commercial Division, which set aside warrants and auction notices linked to an attempted sale of the complex in May.

In that ruling, the court found that the auction process conducted by Synergy Industrial Credit and Moran Auctioneers was defective.

Cape Holdings maintains that the latest ruling does not affect the decision setting aside the warrants and auction notices.

The company said it would appeal the latest decision to have its constitutional arguments heard and determined by the court.

It added that it was not seeking to evade its debt obligations but wanted the issues raised in its petition to be considered on their merits.