The High Court has nullified the planned auction of the prime 14 Riverside Drive property after finding that the execution documents used to facilitate the sale were defective and invalid.

Justice Moses Ado set aside the warrants of sale, notification of sale and the auctioneer’s notice and advertisement, directing that any fresh attempt to sell the property must begin afresh and strictly comply with the law.

The ruling followed an urgent application by Cape Holdings Ltd., the registered owner of the property, filed on May 22, 2026, four days before the scheduled auction.

The court issued interim orders on May 23 stopping the sale pending determination of the objections raised by Cape Holdings over the execution process.

In his ruling, Justice Ado identified four defects in the execution instruments issued on March 16, 2026.

The judge found that the warrant of sale did not contain a court-fixed reserve price, which he held was a mandatory safeguard under the Auctioneers Rules.

He rejected an argument by Synergy Credit that the existence of a valuation report was sufficient to satisfy the requirement, holding that a valuation did not amount to the fixing of a reserve price.

“The existence of a valuation report is not fixing of a reserve price,” the judge ruled.

“A valuation report gives market and forced sale value. The reserve price, on the other hand, is a mandatory minimum figure settled by the court under Order 22, Rule 57, below which its officer cannot sell.”

Justice Ado said the reserve price was particularly important because it protected the property from being sold at an undervalue.

“The defect is not a technicality. The reserve price is a principal safeguard against sale at an undervalue and it was the very safeguard this court ordered to be put in place,” he said.

The court also found that the warrant failed to disclose four registered long leases affecting the property. According to the judge, the omission amounted to a material irregularity that could expose any resulting sale to being set aside.

The March 2026 execution instruments were further faulted for having been issued without fresh terms of sale being settled after earlier warrants had been set aside in June 2025.

Justice Ado also found that the auctioneer had failed to prepare and serve the required Form 4 Notification of Sale, which is required to specify the value of the property under Rule 15B of the Auctioneers Rules.

The judge consequently nullified the impugned execution instruments and directed that any future sale commence through a fresh process.

The court dismissed a preliminary objection by Synergy Credit challenging its jurisdiction to determine Cape Holdings’ application.

Synergy had argued that the High Court could not intervene after the Court of Appeal declined to grant an interim stay of the auction.

Justice Ado, however, held that Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act gives the court executing a decree exclusive jurisdiction over questions relating to its execution, discharge or satisfaction.

“Determining whether execution instruments issued by this court complied with Order 22 and Auctioneers Rules is a statutory function committed exclusively to this court at first instance,” he ruled.

The judge further ruled that Synergy’s own counsel had informed the Court of Appeal that Cape Holdings had not approached the High Court to stop the auction and had acknowledged that compliance with the execution rules was a matter for the High Court.

“A party may not probate and reprobate at the same time,” Justice Ado said.

The court also expunged from the record allegations by Synergy suggesting collusion between the court and Cape Holdings’ advocates.

Justice Ado found that the allegations were not supported by any affidavit and that the material before the court did not support such an inference.

The judge ordered that the property first undergo an updated professional valuation.

The Deputy Registrar will thereafter settle fresh terms of sale and fix a reserve price after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard.

Cape Holdings welcomed the decision, saying the court had affirmed that any sale of the property must comply with the law.

“We welcome the Court’s decisive ruling. The Court has confirmed that no sale can proceed outside the law. This auction process was deeply flawed and could not be allowed to stand,” the company said.

Cape Holdings said the decision was an important step towards ensuring due process and the rule of law, adding that it remained committed to defending its legal rights and pursuing a lawful resolution of the dispute.

Synergy has indicated that it intends to appeal the decision.