Nairobi businessman Rajendra Ratilal Sanghani has moved to the Environment and Land Court seeking urgent orders to stop what he describes as an unlawful attempt to push him out of a Ksh 70 million property transaction after allegedly helping rescue the property from an imminent public auction.
Court documents filed before the Environment and Land Court show that Sanghani has sued Thomas Kilonzo Mwanza and Karen Nkatha Rimita over property known as Nairobi/Block 6/263/8 SAGE DEVELOPMENT, located on Peponi Road, in Nairobi.
According to the pleadings, the parties entered into a written sale agreement dated December 18, 2025, under which Sanghani agreed to purchase the property for Ksh 70 million.
The suit states that the property had allegedly faced an imminent public auction scheduled for December 19, 2025, prompting Sanghani to urgently step into the transaction and directly pay Ksh 7 million to Stanbic Bank 3 hours before to redeem the charged property and stop the auction process.
The agreement filed in court further shows that the Ksh 7 million deposit was to be paid directly into the Stanbic Bank loan account connected to the property for purposes of partial redemption of the existing charge.
Sanghani now argues that after allegedly benefiting from his intervention and avoiding the threatened auction, the defendants later attempted to back out of the agreement.
In his witness statement, Sanghani states that he not only paid the Ksh 7 million deposit, being 10% of the sale value, but also advanced additional sums amounting to approximately Ksh 1 million at the request of the 1st defendant in furtherance of the transaction.
Court filings indicate that on January 29, 2026, lawyers acting for Karen Nkatha Rimita issued what they described as a notice of intention to terminate the transaction and proposed refunding the Ksh 7 million deposit only if a mutual termination and discharge agreement was executed between the parties.
However, Sanghani maintains that no such discharge agreement was ever signed.
The businessman further claims that despite remaining ready and financially able to complete the purchase, the vendors failed to provide completion documents required under the agreement before later declaring that the transaction had allegedly lapsed.
In the case, Sanghani accuses the defendants of what he terms as “wrongful, inequitable and unconscionable repudiation” of the agreement after allegedly obtaining relief from the imminent auction using his money.
The suit also seeks orders restraining the defendants from advertising, selling, transferring, charging or in any way dealing with the property pending determination of the dispute.
In his supporting affidavit, Sanghani states:
“I materially altered my position and accorded the defendants substantial and immediate relief from the threatened auction and charge pressure.”
He further argues that unless the court intervenes urgently, the property may be sold to third parties despite the role he allegedly played in preserving it from auction.
The matter is now pending before the Environment and Land Court in Nairobi.
