Resigned African Inland Church (AIC) Bishop Silas Misoi Yego has lost the fight to stop the selling of his multi-million property in the upmarket Kileleshwa zone.
The Bishop has neglected to save his 50 top-of-the-line lofts which will presently be sold by the TransNational Bank over an Sh. 153 million credit.
Bishop Silas Misoi Yego had acquired the cash from Trans National Bank in 2014 to develop 50 loft units on the property through his firm, Siro Investments. A year ago, however, he neglected to support the advance.
This saw Trans National Bank request that Purple Royal Auctioneers recuperate the advance through a public deal.
Diocesan Yego had moved to court to challenge the bartering saying the bank had underestimated the property and that the exceptional equilibrium was Sh. 86 million, not the Sh. 153 million cited by the loan specialist.
He likewise griped that the bank neglected to give him the necessary notice of the offer.
In the main decision, Justice David Majanja decided that since Bishop Yego conceded the obligation, and could along these lines not endure the misfortune that can’t be remunerated by harms.
“As indicated by the correspondence between the gatherings, the offended party has been in default since 2019. He has not met guarantee to settle the obligation in spite of a few proposals by the bank to acknowledge settlement,” said equity Majanja.
The appointed authority said Bishop Silas Misoi Yego put together his objection with respect to the way that he had gone into a deal concurrence with an outsider who was able to purchase the property at Sh. 200 million.
Mr. Yego had appended a deal understanding made among him and Peter Kivolonzi who had consented to buy the suit property for Sh. 200 million. He told the court that the deal crashed in the wake of Covid-19, whose impacts have strongly cut deals and decreased hunger for properties.
Bishop Silas Misoi Yego at that point requested this decision. Yet, the allure was excused on the grounds that there were no new realities to empower the court to hear the case anew.
“Like the Court of Appeal held, the offended party is obligated to the bank and nothing currently holds up the traffic of the bank practicing its legal force of offer,” the court dominated.