Multi-billion Dusit D2 Hotel has survived the auctioneer's hammer following the latest revelation that the complex has an existing debt.
On Wednesday, January 26, the Court of Appeal halted auctioning of the property in Nairobi's Riverside Drive where the iconic establishment stands.
A bench of three judges halted the whole auctioning process following an application that was lodged by a local bank and an administrator appointed by the lender, noting that the owner of the complex owes them Ksh2.82 billion.
The property had been advertised on sale and even procedures issued on how bidders can view and acquire the property.
Moran Auctioneers got a nod to sell the property after Cape Holdings Limited, owner of the property, failed to clear a debt amounting to Ksh4.2 billion to Synergy Industrial Credit in an 11-year-court-battle.
The complex sits on a 5.2-acre parcel of land and comprising of five office blocks, a five-star hotel (Dusit D2) with a swimming pool, a parking silo, food court, and cafeteria.
The area set for auctioning comprises of the ground floor to six floors. The ground floors have banking halls, shops, while the hotel has seven floors with 101 rooms and suites.
It also has a bar, restaurant, library, meeting rooms, and a gym and amenities including a spa, swimming pool, and an open-air restaurant. The parking silo can accommodate 625 vehicles with an additional 34 parking bays.
The advertisement required bidders to deposit Ksh5 million and must pay 25 per cent of the purchase price at the fall of the hammer.
“Bidders must place a deposit of Ksh5 million and must pay 25 per cent of the purchase price at the fall of the hammer and the balance should be cleared within 60 days,” the advertisement read.
The decision to stop the auctioning came just months after Justice Alfred Mabeya dismissed the bank’s application detailing that the lender would not suffer prejudice because it has other securities whereas stopping the sale would subject Synergy to irreparable loss.
“The court has considered the foregoing and the fact that it has not been shown that the amount to be realized from the sale of the suit property would not be enough to offset both the decretal amount and a substantial amount part thereof remain for the bank,” Justice Mabeya ruled.
