Bank of Baroda’s Kenya operations have come under fresh legal pressure after a High Court (HC) order authorised the attachment and possible auction of the bank’s movable assets to recover KSh2.996bn (billion) or around ₹221 crore awarded to Infinity Industrial Park Ltd, headed by Gujarati businessman Ashok Rupshi Shah.
The development has also fuelled speculation that Bank of Baroda (Kenya) Ltd could be shutting down its operations in the country. The bank, however, has rejected the reports, saying it continues to operate normally in Kenya.
In a statement issued on 18 September 2026, the Kenyan subsidiary described reports about the alleged closure of its operations as false and misleading. It advised customers, employees, business partners and members of the public to disregard unverified information and rely on official communications from the bank and relevant regulators.
The statement comes at a sensitive time for the lender’s Kenyan business, with a court-directed recovery process now underway in a commercial dispute with Infinity Industrial Park.
HC Authorises Attachment of Bank’s Assets
On 15 September 2026, the HC’s commercial and tax division in Nairobi issued a warrant of attachment against Bank of Baroda (Kenya).
The warrant identifies Infinity as the decree holder and Bank of Baroda as the judgment debtor. It puts the amount due at KSh2.99bn, including the decretal amount, further costs and collection fees.
The Eastleigh Voice, in its 15th September report, said Moran Auctioneers had been authorised to attach movable property belonging to the bank unless the amount due, along with attachment costs, was paid. The attached assets can subsequently be sold through a public auction, subject to the prescribed legal notices.
The enforcement order followed the court’s formalisation of the decree awarding Infinity Industrial Park KSh2.996bn in special damages.
The case, therefore, does not mean that Bank of Baroda’s entire Kenyan operation has been ordered to shut down. It means that eligible movable assets of the judgment debtor may be attached as part of the legal process for enforcing the monetary award, unless the process is stayed, settled or otherwise restrained by a subsequent court order.
Dispute Began with Financing for Industrial Park
The dispute stems from financing provided by Bank of Baroda to Infinity Industrial Park for the development of a large industrial and warehouse project along Nairobi’s Eastern Bypass.
Infinity had used its property as security for the financing. The relationship between the developer and the bank reportedly deteriorated later amid disagreements over the project, the financing arrangement and the property offered as security.
Infinity brought proceedings against the bank and alleged, among other things, that the lender had withheld land documents needed for the project, delayed approvals relating to the property and stopped releasing further funds under the financing arrangement.
The developer argued that these issues affected the development of the project and its ability to generate cash flows.
The case eventually took an important procedural turn when Bank of Baroda failed to file its defence within the period directed by the court.
Why the Default Judgment Was Not Set Aside
The bank subsequently went back to court seeking to have the default judgment set aside. In
a report on 22 August 2026, The Standard said justice Peter Mulwa rejected the bank’s application, finding that the lender had entered an appearance through its lawyers, participated in the proceedings and had been given an opportunity to file its defence.
The bank had argued that the summons to enter appearance had not been served and that this made the default judgment procedurally defective. It also maintained that its intended defence raised substantive issues concerning the charge over Infinity’s property, the amount secured and a statutory notice issued in relation to the loan.
The court, however, held that the bank had already submitted itself to the court’s jurisdiction by entering an appearance and participating in the proceedings. Justice Mulwa found that the failure to file the defence within the court-ordered timeline was a matter of non-compliance with the court’s directions.
The bank also attributed its failure to file the defence to its former lawyers. According to reports of the proceedings, the lender said its former advocates, Tayabjee & Bhalla Advocates, had failed to tell it that the court had granted leave to file a defence within a specified period.
That explanation did not persuade the court to reopen the matter.
The judge also held that the existence of potentially triable issues was not, on its own, sufficient to set aside the judgment, where the bank had not provided a satisfactory explanation for failing to meet the deadline.
Infinity Had Sought a Commercial Settlement
Infinity Industrial Park has said it made several attempts to resolve the dispute commercially. According to the company's position reported in the Kenyan media, it sought to restructure its facilities and partially release portions of its industrial property so that proceeds from the sale could be used to reduce the bank’s outstanding exposure.
Infinity said it offered about KSh250mn (million) in December 2025 for the release of around 10 acres of land. It also said potential investors were prepared to provide funds towards settlement of the outstanding debt and that it had sought a full-and-final settlement figure from the bank.
The company has further alleged that attempts to revive settlement discussions after the ruling did not succeed.
The company has also challenged the appointment of joint administrators by Bank of Baroda, describing the move as improper. That aspect forms part of the wider dispute between the two sides.
Kenya Case Comes after $600mn NMC Settlement
The Kenya dispute is also notable because it comes shortly after Bank of Baroda settled another major overseas legal dispute.
In July 2026, Bank of Baroda disclosed that it had agreed to pay US$600mn, equivalent to around ₹5,680 crore, to settle claims brought by NMC Health PLC, NMC Healthcare Ltd, NMC Holding Ltd and their respective joint administrators.
The settlement relates to proceedings before the Abu Dhabi Global Market Court of First Instance and the High Court of Justice in England and Wales arising from the insolvency of entities within the NMC group.
The NMC settlement is separate from the Kenya dispute and involves different parties and claims.
The immediate issue in Kenya is the enforcement of the KSh2.996bn judgment. Moran Auctioneers has been directed to proceed with attaching sufficient movable assets to cover the amount due and related costs. If the debt remains unpaid, the attached property could be sold at a public auction after the required notices and procedures are completed.
The auctioneer must report to the court by 15 October 2026, on whether the warrant was executed and, if so, when and how it was carried out.
At the same time, Bank of Baroda continues to maintain that its Kenyan operations are functioning normally and has rejected reports that it is exiting the country.
For now, there is no indication in the material cited above that the Kenyan court has ordered Bank of Baroda to close its operations. The legal battle instead remains focused on the enforcement of the KSh2.996bn award to Infinity Industrial Park.
You may also want to read…
