@ehdande @CysuitesHotel @CytonnInvest bloody conmen and women In the Milimani Commercial & Tax E352 of 2024 @Ndonglaw043 @joshuamalidzo @blackorwa @MwangoCapital see your friends 😂😂😂😂 common thieves who thought they can use the law the judicial system to defraud innocent Kenyans numbering 4000 and get away with it Another important judgment from the High Court in the Cytonn saga. On 24 July 2026, the High Court (Commercial & Tax Division) dismissed Cysuites’ attempt to stop KCB Bank from exercising its statutory remedies over the Wasini Resorts property. The ruling is much more than a routine injunction decision—it is a reaffirmation of some of the most fundamental principles of company, banking and insolvency law. The Court rejected the argument that because Cysuites acquired shares in Wasini Resorts Limited (WRL), it became the beneficial owner of the charged property. Instead, it reaffirmed the doctrine established in Salomon v Salomon and Macaura v Northern Assurance: A company is a separate legal person. Its shareholders own shares—not the company’s assets. That distinction proved decisive. The property belonged to WRL. WRL was the chargor. KCB’s contractual relationship was with WRL. Share ownership could not be transformed into proprietary rights over land already charged to the bank. The Court also rejected reliance on the Share Purchase Agreement under which Cysuites agreed to assume WRL’s liabilities. KCB was not a party to that agreement, had not consented to it, and its rights under the registered Charge could not be altered by a private arrangement between other parties. Equally significant was the Court’s acceptance of the Official Receiver’s position that CHYS LLP (in liquidation) financed the acquisition and that Cysuites merely acted as the vehicle through which those funds were channelled. While the ultimate determination of ownership issues will continue within the liquidation process, the Court found that this did not prevent KCB from enforcing its perfected security. Perhaps the most important insolvency principle reaffirmed by the judgment is that liquidation or preservation proceedings do not suspend the rights of a secured creditor. A perfected charge remains enforceable. A secured lender does not lose its priority merely because insolvency proceedings are underway. This provides much-needed certainty to Kenya’s credit markets. Banks lend against security on the understanding that valid charges will be enforceable. If every insolvency automatically froze enforcement rights, commercial lending would become significantly riskier. The Court also made an observation that deserves attention in today’s corporate environment: Loan restructuring is not a legal entitlement. Borrowers cannot compel a lender to restructure facilities. Restructuring remains a matter of commercial negotiation and mutual agreement. Courts will not substitute themselves for bankers by forcing new contractual terms upon unwilling lenders. Applying the well-established Giella v Cassman Brown test, the Court found that Cysuites failed at the very first hurdle. No prima facie case. Without legal standing or a recognizable proprietary interest, there was no basis upon which an injunction could issue. The Court therefore dismissed the application with costs. For creditors following the Cytonn liquidation, this ruling is significant. It removes one more obstacle to the realization of charged assets. Once secured creditors recover what is lawfully due under their securities, any surplus may ultimately become available for the liquidation estate and, in due course, for distribution in accordance with insolvency law. The judgment is also a reminder that corporate structures matter. Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) do not dissolve the doctrine of separate legal personality. Ownership of shares is not ownership of land. Private agreements cannot override registered securities without the secured creditor’s consent.

Justice Mugambi has now dismissed the application seeking removal of the Official Receiver in the Cytonn liquidation. @ehdande @CytonnInvest @she_weru @liznkukuu @jgnasser The Court reaffirmed that: • The OR is the lawful custodian of The Alma under the Insolvency Act. • SBM’s secured creditor priority is protected by law. • The creditors committee was elected by creditors themselves. • Allegations of bribery, corruption and fabricated minutes were unsupported. • Removal of a liquidator is a “draconian step” requiring proof — not noise. The Court sternly directed you surrender the Alma within 7 days and to close your irreverent nonesense the OR to furnishe accounts of which you know there is nothing to report. Those blanks you want will be filed within 45 days. That is supervision. Nothing but to close your open straws and proof how much of a fraudster you are Another sensational application collapses under scrutiny. Meanwhile, the insolvency process continues exactly where the Court of Appeal left it: preservation, tracing, realization and pari passu distribution to creditors.

@ehdande @CytonnInvest Let’s correct the record. Nothing was “won”. The court did not vindicate Cytonn. The ruling turned on a procedural evidentiary gap, not on the merits of the conduct in question. The judge was explicit: each party to bear their own costs. If this was the sweeping victory being claimed, costs would ordinarily follow the event. They did not. What actually happened is simple: • The Capital Markets Authority @CMAKenya referenced certain proof in submissions but did not place the material before the court. • The court therefore had nothing evidential to rely on in assessing justification. • The outcome was therefore procedural — not substantive. This is a classic case of form beating substance. And trying to spin that into “we won” is misleading the public using self proclaimed whatsapp screenshots. We sat through the court ruling that came 3 years late , but it came and we are now back to @DCI_Kenya to cure the defects noted by the Honorable Justice Moses Ado. You can run but cannot run away from what Justice Mabeya termed as a scheme Akin to Fraud What is not disputed is this: Six years later, creditors of CHYS and CPN have not received even a single cent. In that context, the intervention by Wycliffe Shamiah as CEO of the Capital Markets Authority to protect the investing public was not only justified — it was necessary. No amount of social media spin changes the reality that: • investors lost billions 15billion in projects with exaggerated valuations • liquidation proceedings are ongoing to return value to the creditors • and the Court of Appeal of Kenya confirmed what was already described in the Highcourt about the Cytonn structure as “a scheme akin to a fraud.” The public deserves facts, not victory laps built on procedural technicalities. @Kenyajudiciary @jsckenya @NAssemblyKE @NPSOfficial_KE #InvestorProtection #Cytonn #RuleOfLaw

The Cytonn case by @ehdande and @CytonnInvest illustrates how “interested parties” can be weaponised in insolvency litigation. Joinder is meant for parties whose rights may be affected — not for litigation proxies advancing the same agenda as the promoters. When multiple “interested parties” file serial applications aligned with the company under liquidation, the court is not seeing independent stakeholders. It is seeing shadow litigation designed to derail and stall liquidation. That is precisely why courts guard the limits of interested-party participation. @Kenyajudiciary @jsckenya

businessdailyafrica.com/bd/c… @ODPC_KE Why @CytonnInvest needs to be slapped with fines This entity is still engaged in spamming people with unsolicited messages despite our various complaints you have chosen to go mum on the same. We know that @ehdande is one guy who is not shy to engaging in unscrupulous ways like in this instance to manage the complaints with the data commissioner. They must respect data protection laws like other entities . I personally is not interested in any thing from the akin to fraud empire . @ODPC_KE we are watching you