By Andrew Kariuki

Nairobi businessman Rajendra Ratilal Sanghani has moved to the Environment and Land Court seeking urgent orders to block the sale or transfer of a disputed Ksh 70 million property transaction, claiming he helped save the property from an impending public auction before the deal allegedly collapsed.

Court papers 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, situated along Peponi Road in Nairobi.

According to the court filings, the parties entered into a sale agreement dated December 18, 2025, under which Sanghani agreed to purchase the property for Ksh 70 million.

The suit claims the property had been facing an imminent auction scheduled for December 19, 2025, prompting Sanghani to urgently intervene by paying Ksh 7 million directly to Stanbic Bank approximately three hours before the scheduled auction in order to redeem the charged property and halt the process.

Documents filed in court indicate that the Ksh 7 million payment formed part of the contractual deposit and was remitted directly into the Stanbic Bank loan account tied to the property to facilitate partial redemption of the existing charge.

Sanghani now argues that after benefiting from his intervention and avoiding the threatened auction, the defendants later sought to withdraw from the transaction.

In his witness statement, Sanghani says he not only paid the Ksh 7 million deposit, representing 10 percent of the agreed purchase price, but also advanced additional sums amounting to approximately Ksh 1 million at the request of the 1st defendant in furtherance of the transaction.

Court records further show that on January 29, 2026, advocates acting for Karen Nkatha Rimita issued a notice expressing intention to terminate the transaction and proposed refunding the Ksh 7 million deposit subject to execution of a mutual termination and discharge agreement between the parties.

However, Sanghani maintains that no such agreement was ever executed.

He further contends that despite remaining ready and financially capable of completing the purchase, the vendors failed to furnish the completion documents required under the agreement before later asserting that the transaction had lapsed.

In the suit, Sanghani accuses the defendants of what he describes as “wrongful, inequitable and unconscionable repudiation” after allegedly benefiting from funds he provided to avert the auction.

The businessman is now seeking court orders restraining the defendants from advertising, transferring, charging, selling or otherwise dealing with the property pending hearing and determination of the case.

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, the property risks being transferred to third parties despite the role he allegedly played in preserving it from auction.

The matter is currently pending before the Environment and Land Court in Nairobi.