Infinity Industrial Park Limited has asked the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) to investigate the conduct of Bank of Baroda (Kenya) Limited in its dealings with the industrial park following a High Court ruling that nullified the bank’s move to place the company under administration.

Infinity lodged a formal complaint with the banking regulator, seeking a supervisory review of the bank’s conduct and consideration of any regulatory action that CBK may deem appropriate.

The complaint follows a September 24, 2026 ruling by the High Court in Nairobi in Bank of Baroda Kenya Limited v Infinity Industrial Park Limited (HCCOMMIN/E132/2026), in which the court set aside, annulled and terminated the appointment of joint administrators over the industrial park.

In the ruling, the court found that the administration amounted to an “improper and collateral invocation of statutory insolvency powers” and was inconsistent with the purposes and objects of administration under the Insolvency Act.

Infinity has now asked CBK to examine the circumstances surrounding the bank’s decision-making, including its credit management, governance, legal-risk controls and handling of the company’s proposals to repay or reduce its indebtedness.

The company has also asked the regulator to examine the circumstances in which the administrators were appointed, coming shortly after the bank’s unsuccessful attempt to set aside a subsisting default judgment.

The High Court considered the timing and circumstances surrounding the appointment of the administrators in its September 24 ruling.

The court ruled that the administrators were appointed barely 10 days after Bank of Baroda’s application to set aside the default judgment had been dismissed.

The judge held that there was nothing placed before the court to demonstrate that Infinity’s assets were being dissipated or that there was an urgent situation requiring the bank to act before the parties’ respective financial positions had been established.

After considering the circumstances surrounding the administration and the disruption it caused, the court held that the administration was not warranted at the time.

The judge further found that the insolvency jurisdiction had been improperly invoked and that the administration could not be allowed to stand.

The court consequently ordered that the appointment of the joint administrators be “set aside, annulled, terminated and declared incapable of further implementation or reliance.”

It also issued permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunctions restraining further implementation of or reliance on the appointment and requiring the restoration of Infinity’s property, rights, management and control.

Infinity’s directors had resumed operational control of the industrial park on August 28, 2026 following interim orders issued by the court.

In its complaint, Infinity has asked CBK to examine the internal decision-making that preceded the appointment of the administrators.

The company wants the regulator to establish what legal and credit advice was considered, what approvals were obtained and whether the implications of the ongoing court proceedings were adequately considered before the bank proceeded with the administration.

Infinity has also asked CBK to examine whether Bank of Baroda’s conduct complied with applicable regulatory expectations relating to corporate governance, risk management and the treatment of customers.

The company has emphasised that its complaint is a request for regulatory and supervisory scrutiny and does not ask CBK to determine issues reserved for the courts.

Infinity has also raised concerns over the bank’s handling of proposals for the partial discharge of portions of the industrial park that had been charged to secure the bank’s lending.

The company says there were prospective purchasers for some of the plots and that proceeds from the sales could have been used to reduce the bank’s outstanding exposure.

It has therefore asked CBK to examine how its requests for partial discharges were handled, why particular transactions were not facilitated and whether the bank considered proposals that could have generated funds towards repayment.

Infinity has also asked the regulator to review the bank’s handling of restructuring and repayment proposals made during the dispute.

The court granted the company liberty to pursue “damages, compensation, special damages and consequential relief” arising from losses allegedly caused by the impugned appointment and actions undertaken pursuant to it.

Infinity says it is assessing the commercial losses it alleges were caused by the administration and the disruption that followed.

The court further ordered that the costs of the application, costs occasioned by the purported administration and reasonable restoration costs be borne by Bank of Baroda rather than being paid from Infinity’s assets.

Infinity has submitted its complaint and supporting documentation to CBK and is seeking an independent regulatory examination of the bank’s conduct.