Tycoon Rajendra Sanghani moves to court to block sale of Sh70 million land
Crime and Justice
By
Nancy Gitonga
| May 14, 2026
A City businessman has moved to the Land’s Court seeking orders to stop the sale or transfer of a disputed Sh70 million property in Nairobi’s upmarket area.
In an urgent application filed before the Environment and Land Court, Rajendra Ratilal Sanghani is seeking temporary injunctions against Thomas Kilonzo Mwanza and Karen Nkatha Rimita over Title No. Nairobi/Block 6/263/8, pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
The trader says that he paid millions of shillings to rescue the parcel of land in the Peponi area from auction, only for the owners to back out of the deal.
Through his lawyers, Sanghani argues that he entered into a valid sale agreement dated December 18, 2025, and paid a deposit of Sh7 million directly to Stanbic Bank to prevent an imminent auction of the property.
“The Plaintiff was induced by the Defendants… to step in and pay the contractual deposit of Sh 7 million directly to Stanbic Bank… and thereafter advance further monies; he thus materially altered his position… and remains ready, willing and financially able to complete,” the court documents state.
READ MORE
Lamu rising digital economy through youth skills training
Construction sector adjusts to clinker levy on industry rebound
Security concerns evolve as Kenya embraces technology, urban expansion
Inside Sh104b Mombasa port expansion plan
Kenya's coastal land market surges on lifestyle, remote work demand
Kenya eyes green finance to boost climate-smart construction
Westgate Mall bets on improved security, new activities to up foot traffic
Co-op Bank posts Sh8.41 billion profit amid tough economy
Sanghani avers that the payment was made on the understanding that the transaction would proceed through a private treaty arrangement to avert the scheduled auction.
However, the dispute arose after the defendants Kilonzo and Nkatha allegedly attempted to terminate the agreement.
According to the application, a letter dated January 29, 2026, only issued a notice of intention to terminate and proposed a refund subject to a mutual termination agreement, which was never executed.
“No such agreement was ever executed, and no refund was ever made,” the applicant states.
Sanghani maintains that he treated the attempted termination as a breach of contract and formally asserted his rights through his advocates.
He further issued a completion notice on March 23, 2026, affirming his intention to proceed with the purchase.
Despite this, Kilonzo and Nkatha allegedly failed to complete the transaction and later claimed that the agreement had lapsed.
In his supporting affidavit, Sanghani accuses the duo of acting in bad faith after benefiting from his intervention.
“Having regard to the Defendants’ earlier representations… the purported repudiation is wrongful, inequitable, manifestly unjust and unconscionable,” he states.
He further argues that the defendants cannot rely on lapse of time to terminate the contract, particularly where their own actions contributed to the delay in completion.
The businessman now fears that the property could be sold to third parties, effectively defeating his contractual and equitable interests.
“There is a real and imminent danger that… the Defendants may now sell, transfer, charge, alienate… or otherwise deal with the suit property to the prejudice of the Plaintiff unless preservatory orders are issued forthwith,” the application warns.
Sanghani is seeking court orders to restrain any dealings with the property and to have an inhibition registered against the title to block any transactions.
He argues that the land is a unique asset and that damages alone would not be sufficient compensation if it is disposed of.
“The suit property is unique immovable property; the balance of convenience… lie in preserving the status quo,” the application states.
The matter is yet to be certified urgent and scheduled for hearing.