Bank of Baroda has suffered a major setback after the High Court dismissed its bid to halt enforcement of a Sh2 billion judgment against it.
In a ruling, Justice Peter Mulwa found that the bank had shown indolence by failing to comply with a court-ordered deadline to file its defence, clearing the way for enforcement of a September 8, 2025 default judgment obtained by Infinity Industrial Park Limited.
Infinity Industrial Park Limited, the developer of the industrial park along Nairobi’s Eastern Bypass, had obtained a default judgment in proceedings against Bank of Baroda, with the company pursuing, among its remedies, a claim for approximately Sh2.9 billion in damages.
Bank of Baroda (Kenya) Limited subsequently moved to court to stop enforcement of the judgment arising from its long-running dispute with Infinity Industrial Park Limited over a loan facility and property offered as security.
The bank also sought orders to set aside the default judgment and prevent Infinity Industrial Park from taking steps to enforce the Sh2 billion award pending determination of its application.
It also wanted its memorandum of appearance and statement of defence dated September 29, 2025, deemed duly served on Infinity’s advocates.
Justice Mulwa, however, found that the bank had entered appearance through its advocates on July 24, 2024, participated in the proceedings and was subsequently granted leave to file a defence within a specified period.
The judge found that the bank was represented by counsel and was fully aware of the court order requiring it to file its defence, but failed to do so before the matter came up for a pre-trial conference on September 8, 2025.
“On the face of the record, the judgment is regular,” Justice Mulwa ruled.
The bank had argued that summons to enter appearance were never served on it and that it only received the plaint, Notice of Motion and court orders.
It maintained that the absence of summons rendered the default judgment unprocedural and unlawful.
However, the judge held that having entered an appearance, participated in interlocutory proceedings and been expressly granted leave to file a defence, the bank had placed itself “squarely within the Court's jurisdiction.”
“The failure to comply with the Court's timeline is not attributable to the absence of formal summons; it is simply a case of non-compliance with a court order,” Justice Mulwa ruled.
The judge further noted that no affidavit had been sworn by the bank’s advocate explaining any “mistake, inadvertence or other excusable circumstance” that led to the failure to file the defence.
“Litigation cannot be conducted at the convenience of one party while the opposing party diligently complies with the Court's directions,” he said, describing the bank’s conduct as “indolence”.
Justice Mulwa said the court would not exercise its discretion in favour of a party that had disregarded its orders.
The bank had also argued that its intended defence raised weighty triable issues, including a replacement charge over Infinity’s property, L.R. No. 31978, originally known as L.R. No. 11522, the amount secured by the charge and a statutory notice issued over the loan facility.
The bank pointed to a statutory notice of Sh2,070,592,869 which it said was served on Infinity on September 1, 2025.
Justice Mulwa acknowledged that the matters raised by the bank were significant matters but held that the existence of triable issues alone was not sufficient to warrant setting aside the judgment.
“The Defendant must first provide a satisfactory explanation for why the defence was not filed timely. Without a credible reason, the existence of triable issues does not automatically justify setting aside the case,” he ruled.
Infinity opposed the application through an affidavit sworn by industrialist Ashok Rupshi Shah on January 9, 2026, accusing the bank of acting in bad faith and deliberately attempting to obstruct justice.
Shah maintained that the plaint, Notice of Motion and supporting documents had been served on the bank on June 21, 2024.
He further stated that the bank entered appearance on July 24, 2024 and opposed the plaintiff’s application.
After the plaintiff’s application was dismissed, the bank was granted time to file its defence but failed to comply with the court’s directions, leading to the default judgment when the matter came up for pre-trial conference.
Infinity argued that the bank had not demonstrated any prejudice that would justify reopening the matter.
Justice Mulwa also invoked Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution, which requires courts to administer justice without undue delay, alongside Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, which emphasise the fair, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.
“A party that neglects its rights cannot later rely on the Constitution to avoid the repercussions of its own inaction,” Justice Mulwa ruled.
The judge consequently dismissed the bank’s September 29, 2025 application, describing it as devoid of merit.
