Good analysis watesh.
Retail lending is very competitive from your analysis.

Looks like it is time to exit NCBA. Too many irons in the fire and Gachora (NCBA) has no skin in the game unlike King James (Equity).

Gachora makes way more than JM in terms of a salary but no skin in the game.

1. My understanding of what happened here is that Buzeki took Landmark's money with a promise to sell land to them. They didn't sell the land because it was charged to some bank. Landmark asked for a refund. Buzeki failed to pay. Landmark went to court and obtained an order for refund. Again Buzeki failed to pay as per the order. Landmark therefore attached 53 trucks for auction.
2. Upon Landmark's attachment of the trucks, NCBA moved to court to stop the auction. Their basis was that they had lent 2.7B to Buzeki which money was used to buy the attached trucks. In other words NCBA said they have a greater right to the trucks than Landmark. A case of this nature is called an Interpleader Suit.
3. My views:
a) These kind of suits are normal for banks. Core business of banks is to take deposits, lend and secure sufficient collateral for the monies lent. This suit is just another day in business for NCBA.
b) Is Buzeki in distress? Possibly because cargo is now hauled to Nairobi by SGR hence lack of business.
c) Chances of success by NCBA in this suit are slim unless they show that the trucks were specifically charged to them or they have a priority charge over Buzeki's floating assets.
d) Is this fatal for NCBA? Unlikely if due diligence was followed to ensure sufficiency of collateral when lending out the loans and the bank followed CBK prudential guidelines. There is no mention of Buzeki having defaulted on NCBA loans. Default is however possible due to the disruption of cargo haulage from Mombasa and the ongoing Covid19 situation.
e) I want to believe that NCBA's collateral is sufficient. There is a good chance that the land to be sold was in fact charged to NCBA.

Who is Buzeki and who owns NCBA?
There was some bending of rules

I respectfully disagree. Now these kinds of deals, the deposit is paid to the sellor's advocate which is held as stakeholders. The Sellor's advocate cannot release the deposit or the balance of the purchase price unless the seller has complied with all its obligation most importantly which is the delivery of completion documents (where by its an exchange of money and documents that vest ownership i.e a transfer title deed etc).

The LSK conditions of Sale which are incorporated into most sale agreements with a few exceptions provide that the purchase price (which consists of the deposit and the balance of the purchase price) can only be released upon the registration of the transfer in favour of the buyer.

These rules were made to protect buyers from situations where the buyer pays a deposit and later the seller changes his mind to the detriment of the purchaser. Therefore, you will see why something is not making sense in this transaction.

land transactions usually don't take longer than 90 days (assuming the parties have all the documents and money) unless you have an incompetent lawyer.

Restructured loans as at June 30--ksh.58 billion

Every week I see new negative sentiments about this bank consistently on social media. The main issues are on basic functionality of things and money disappearing in accounts. A year later with the same issues, management doesnt seem to care that much.

I attended the virtual agm. Management admitted that there were hiccups in the integration process which affected customer service.