Six investment vehicles linked to Cytonn have lost a bid to overturn the cancellation of their titles for properties in Nairobi, Kiambu and Machakos counties that were registered under the Official Receiver, leaving the State as the properties custodian.
The Environment and Land Court ruled that the land registrars did not act independently or unlawfully in cancelling the titles and registering the Official Receiver, but were carrying out binding preservation, vesting and implementation orders issued by the Insolvency Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The properties include residential, commercial and mixed-use developments, ranging from luxury villas in Karen to large residential communities in Ruiru, Ruaka, Ridgeways, Kilimani and Athi River.
The decision removes a legal challenge to the Receiver’s registration over the properties, but does not free him to dispose them of because earlier Supreme Court orders stopping enforcement of the vesting orders remain in force pending the appeal.
The ruling concerns projects described as Kilimani, Riverrun, Taraji, The Ridge, Applewood and Mystic Plains.
At the same time, the High Court has suspended a constitutional petition by Goal Advisory Africa, trustee of the regulated Cytonn High Yield Fund representing more than 24,000 investors, pending the Supreme Court’s determination of the properties dispute.
The rulings arose from the liquidation of Cytonn High Yield Solutions (CHYS) LLP and Cytonn Real Estate Project Notes LLP, placed under liquidation in January 2023.
The State began seeking bids for several properties in March 2026 as part of efforts to recover about Sh11 billion owed to more than 3,000 investors. The properties included The Ridge, Taraji Heights, Applewood Villas and three Kilimani parcels.
In the first case, Cytonn Investment Partners Four, Five, Ten, Eleven and Sixteen LLPs and Epazec Company LLP challenged the Chief Land Registrar and land registrars in Nairobi, Kiambu and Machakos.
They wanted the court to quash cancellation of their titles and restore their names in the land register.
They argued that the registrars acted without notice, breached the Land Registration Act and violated their property rights and right to fair administrative action.
The applicants told the court that the Chief Land Registrar and other land registrars unlawfully cancelled their titles, registered the Official Receiver as proprietor and issued provisional titles without notice or compliance with Section 33 of the Land Registration Act.
They said some properties had competing titles and that several had been advertised for sale.
The Official Receiver disputed that account, saying the High Court had preserved the properties after finding a connection between investor money and their acquisition.
It said the court later vested the properties in the liquidator and authorised steps to issue provisional titles where original documents were not surrendered. The Court of Appeal upheld those orders on November 21, 2025.
The registrars said they had no independent discretion because they were implementing court orders.
Justice Christine Ochieng agreed, finding that statutory procedures governing provisional titles did not apply where registration was undertaken pursuant to a court order.
‘Judicial review cannot be used to seek to circumvent compliance with a subsisting court order nor as a substitute for appeal. Judicial review is unavailable because there was no independent administrative decision to review or quash,’ the judge said.
In the second case, Goal Advisory Africa asked the High Court to compel the Chief Land Registrar to disclose the documents and process used to issue the provisional titles, but the request was declined.
The trustee said it represented a regulated fund with more than 24,000 investors and held first-ranking creditor interests exceeding Sh267.9 million over the properties.
Justice Patricia Nyaundi declined to compel disclosure, holding that Goal Advisory had not first used the procedure under the Access to Information Act. ‘The applicant has not laid a basis for not proceeding as provided for under the Act,’ she ruled.
The court suspended the petition pending the Supreme Court case and directed that it return on February 3, 2027.