Cytonn’s Last Stand: Supreme Court Gambit and the Battle to Prove Source of Funds on Key Properties

Cytonn’s legal fate is mostly sealed around CHYS and CPN, but the Facebook posts you shared show that the battle over narrative, specific assets and the insolvency framework itself is far from over. They reveal a founder who is not retreating from the fight, but trying to reframe it as a story of “insolvency fraudsters” and a misused Insolvency Act, even as liquidation proceeds. 

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

In a posts on Facebook, Edwin Dande seizes on a key paragraph of the Court of Appeal judgment, which notes that SPVs can still place material before the liquidator to prove that certain assets were not funded by CHYS/CPN money and should be released. He presents this as an opening and questions why, in his view, “the alter ego of the Official Receiver & Justice Mabeya” is “panicking” when SPVs start filing documentation, suggesting that the “fraudulent plan to disenfranchise property is falling apart” and that the process was “never about creditors.” 

In another post, he says the Court of Appeal judgment was “largely good 80%… they said go produce evidence if aggrieved come back,” and then publicises a detailed “proof” on one Kilimani/Ridge transaction, showing deposits, loans and novation documents to argue that only a portion of the property was funded by CHYS, with other investors allegedly “unconnected with CHYS/CPN.” This is both a legal gambit—building a record to persuade the liquidator or a court—and a public relations move, litigating in the court of public opinion as much as in the High Court. 

In another post he confirms that his lawyers have already filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya, and he frames it in sweeping terms: “insolvency fraudsters will find no respite… They have been defrauding companies for 10 years since the Insolvency Act of 2015 was legislated.” Commenters quickly point out that there is no automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court and that the “road ahead looks well closed,” but the post shows he intends to fight on at the highest level, even if only a narrow public-importance question is ever heard. 

What this means for Cytonn’s fate

Legally, the core reality has not changed:

• CHYS and CPN remain in liquidation, with broad preservation and vesting orders over key real-estate assets and SPVs, and the Official Receiver in control. 
• The Court of Appeal has confirmed these orders across 18 appeals, leaving only a difficult, permission-based route to the Supreme Court and limited scope for changing investor recovery outcomes. 

What the posts highlight is the next phase: a series of skirmishes over individual properties and funding chains. By assembling documentation on the source of funds for projects like Kilimani/Ridge and Alma, Dande and allied SPVs are trying to:

• Carve out assets they say are “unconnected” to CHYS/CPN money, persuading the liquidator (and, failing that, a court) to release them from the liquidation estate. 
• Challenge what they cast as an over-expansive use of tracing and the Insolvency Act, positioning themselves as victims of “insolvency fraudsters” rather than perpetrators of a fraudulent scheme. 

Even if some carve-outs succeed, they are unlikely to resurrect Cytonn’s old model. Any assets released would sit under intense scrutiny, and the court’s findings about how CHYS/CPN were structured and sold will continue to weigh heavily on the brand and its promoters. The Supreme Court notice of appeal, meanwhile, is best seen as a long-shot attempt to narrow or reinterpret aspects of the law—on tracing, liquidation scope or the Insolvency Act—not as a realistic path to overturning liquidation entirely. 

A founder fighting on, but on narrower ground

The Facebook posts also offer a window into Edwin Dande’s personal stance. He is:

• Rejecting the idea of closure and signalling to investors and supporters that he is still “in the trenches,” going “property by property” with evidence and pursuing the Supreme Court. 
• Casting himself as the one exposing a wider “insolvency fraud” industry, rather than someone whose structures have been condemned by the courts, which may resonate with some investors who already distrust regulators and the judiciary. 

For Cytonn’s fate, this means:

• The liquidation track continues; investors’ primary hope remains what the Official Receiver can realise from preserved assets, not a sudden legal reversal. 
• Parallel to that, there will likely be prolonged litigation over specific assets, potential Supreme Court skirmishes and ongoing public-relations battles—delaying closure but not fundamentally re-opening the old Cytonn promise of high-yield real-estate investments to the mass market. 

In that light, Cytonn is no longer a growth-stage investment house but a name anchored to a long insolvency unwind, contested narratives and a founder determined to keep fighting in court and online, even as the formal machinery of liquidation grinds on.