Bank of Baroda blames lawyers for failure to file defence in Sh2 billion Infinity Park case

Bank of Baroda blames former lawyers for failing to file its defence in the Sh2 billion Infinity Industrial Park dispute. [Courtesy]

Bank of Baroda has blamed its former lawyers, Taibjee & Bhalla Advocates, for failing to file its defence in the Sh2 billion Infinity Industrial Park dispute.

In a fresh affidavit filed in the long-running commercial dispute before Milimani Commercial Court, the bank says its advocates failed to inform it that the High Court had granted leave to file a defence.

The disclosure comes after Justice Peter Mulwa dismissed the bank's bid to set aside a default judgment entered against it, finding that the lender had been granted an opportunity to file its defence but failed to comply with the court's directions.

The bank, through an affidavit sworn by Mr Hillary Sang, now seeks to explain why the defence was not filed within the period allowed by the court.

“That with respect to paragraph 13 of the honourable court's ruling of July 31, 2026, I wish to confirm that from the advice received from the then Applicant's advocates on record, M/S Taibjee and Bhalla Advocates, the said firm of advocates did not mention at all that leave to file a Defence had been granted to the Applicant (Bank)”, Mr Hillary states.

The bank's position is that it relied on communication from its advocates and was not informed that the court had permitted it to lodge a defence.

The affidavit places the conduct of the advocates at the centre of the bank's explanation for the failure that ultimately resulted in the default judgment.

Justice Mulwa had earlier rejected the bank's application to reopen the case, holding that the lender had participated in the proceedings and had been allowed to file its defence.

The judge said the bank had been represented by counsel and was aware of the court order requiring it to file its defence, but failed to do so before the matter came up for pre-trial conference on September 8, 2025.

“On the face of the record, the judgment is regular,” Justice Mulwa ruled.

The judge further held: “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.”

Infinity Industrial Park had obtained the default judgment after Bank of Baroda failed to file its defence within the stipulated period.

The dispute stems from a loan facility used to finance the development of the industrial park along Nairobi's Eastern Bypass.

Infinity has pursued damages against the bank, with the claim reported at approximately Sh2.9 billion.

Bank of Baroda subsequently sought to have the judgment set aside and have its memorandum of appearance and statement of defence dated September 29, 2025 deemed duly served.

The court, however, dismissed the application on July 31, 2026.

The dispute has since escalated, with Infinity accusing the bank of moving to appoint administrators despite orders arising from the judgment.

On August 10, 2026, the bank issued an insolvency notice purporting to appoint Ponangipalli Venkata Ramana Rao and Swaroop Rao Ponangipalli as joint administrators of Infinity Industrial Park.

Infinity subsequently filed contempt proceedings against Bank of Baroda directors Astitva Bhardwaj and Aman Kumar, alongside the two purported administrators, alleging disobedience of existing court orders.

The High Court has restored the status quo that existed as of July 31, 2026, pending further proceedings, but has not yet found the bank, its directors or the administrators guilty of contempt.

The latest affidavit therefore introduces a fresh dispute over who was responsible for the failure to file the defence that ultimately exposed the bank to the default judgment.