A Sh70 million property deal has turned into a bitter legal and criminal dispute after a Nairobi businessman of Asian origin accused a Kenyan couple of allegedly using a high-value auctioned property to obtain millions from him before the parcel was reportedly sold to other buyers.
Rajendra Ratilal Sanghani has recorded a statement with the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), alleging that he was induced to part with about Sh8 million after being assured that he would acquire the prime Nairobi property, only for the deal to collapse and the property later to reportedly change hands for Sh85 million.
At the centre of the dispute is Title No. Nairobi/Block 6/263/8, whose value was initially agreed at Sh70 million.
Court proceedings before the Environment and Land Court have now revealed that the property had allegedly already been sold to third parties, dramatically changing Sanghani’s case.
The dispute pits Sanghani against Thomas Kilonzo Mwanza and Mwanza’s wife, identified in the proceedings as a daughter of the late judge Karen Nkatha Rimita.
According to court documents, Mwanza and Rimita were the registered proprietors of the property and were therefore the vendors in the aborted transaction.
The auction that opened the door
Sanghani told investigators that his interest in the property began in December 2025 after it was advertised for sale by public auction.
He obtained Mwanza’s contact details and contacted him. The two subsequently met, with Sanghani visiting the property before negotiations began.
The businessman says they eventually settled on a purchase price of Sh70 million.
But according to his account to the DCI, Mwanza repeatedly pressed him to move quickly, warning that the property was due to be auctioned on December 19, 2025 and could be lost if the transaction was delayed.
Sanghani was shown a copy of the title deed, which indicated that the property was charged to Stanbic Bank.
On December 18, 2025, one day before the scheduled auction, the parties signed a formal sale agreement in the presence of their respective lawyers, Kago and Company Advocates and Andago and Company Advocates.
The following day, Sanghani paid Sh7 million, representing the agreed 10 per cent deposit.
The money was not handed directly to Mwanza. Instead, it was transferred through RTGS into Mwanza’s Stanbic Bank loan account, reportedly to reduce the outstanding facility secured against the property.
That payment would later become central to the dispute.
More money allegedly follows
Sanghani alleges that after receiving the deposit, Mwanza continued engaging him and repeatedly requested additional money.
According to the police complaint, some of the requests were allegedly presented as amounts needed for Mwanza’s personal upkeep, with assurances that they would eventually be offset against the Sh70 million purchase price.
Sanghani says he relied on those representations.
He subsequently paid Sh25,000 through M-Pesa on January 3, 2026, Sh540,000 through Prime Bank cheque number 2496, and additional amounts of Sh100,000 and another Sh100,000 through M-Pesa.
He also cites Sh235 in related transaction costs.
The payments, together with the original Sh7 million deposit, brought the amount he says he had parted with to approximately Sh8 million.
The initial Sh7 million RTGS payment was made from Sanghani’s Prime Bank account at the Biashara Street branch, while the M-Pesa transactions were made using his mobile number.
Sanghani maintains that he was financially capable and ready to complete the purchase.
The deal begins to unravel
The businessman says he subsequently instructed his lawyers to formally communicate his readiness to complete the transaction.
Kago and Company Advocates issued a notice of completion dated March 23, 2026, which was received by the vendors’ lawyers and Stanbic Bank on different dates, according to the court documents.
But instead of completion, Sanghani says he received a letter dated January 28, 2026 from Mutembei Chambari and Company Advocates purporting to cancel the sale agreement.
The timing and circumstances surrounding the cancellation have become a major point of contention.
Sanghani’s lawyers rejected the purported cancellation and argued that any cancellation would attract the contractual penalty contained in the agreement.
According to the businessman, the agreement provided for a 10 per cent penalty, equivalent to Sh7 million.
He says the demand has not been honoured.
The Sh4.5 million promise
The allegations deepened after Mwanza allegedly acknowledged owing Sanghani money and undertook in writing to refund Sh4.5 million by March 31, 2026.
Sanghani says the commitment was never honoured.
The businessman further told investigators that Mwanza produced documentation purporting to show that he was expecting $1.35 million from Dubai.
Mwanza allegedly represented that the money would enable him to repurchase the property.
But according to Sanghani, the promised funds did not materialise and communication between the two subsequently broke down.
Sanghani now alleges that the sequence of events amounted to a deliberate scheme to obtain his money through representations he believed were false.
Those allegations remain subject to investigation, and no criminal finding has been made against Mwanza or Rimita.
Property allegedly sold for Sh85 million
The most dramatic twist emerged in the Environment and Land Court.
When the matter came before Lady Justice Lilian Kimani, Sanghani’s lawyers were informed through Mwanza’s replying affidavit, filed on September 21, 2026, that the property had already been sold.
The reported sale price was Sh85 million.
That was Sh15 million above the Sh70 million price initially agreed with Sanghani.
The purchasers are described as third parties who are not currently parties to the proceedings.
The disclosure effectively rendered Sanghani’s earlier application overtaken by events.
His April 23, 2026 application had sought orders aimed at preventing disposal of the property.
With the sale reportedly already completed, his lawyer asked the court to mark the application as spent while seeking permission to amend the pleadings and introduce the new developments.
Neither Mwanza nor Rimita reportedly opposed the application being marked as spent or the proposed amendments.
The court subsequently directed that the matter proceed with amended pleadings.
A second layer of suspicion
The property dispute has also been complicated by separate allegations concerning the signatures of Rimita.
Court material indicates that Rimita has raised allegations that her signature was used or reproduced without her authority in connection with a loan application.
The matter has reportedly been brought to the attention of the DCI.
However, no finding has been made on the allegation, and it remains under investigation.
The allegation could potentially become significant in determining how the property was financed, charged and ultimately dealt with, although the court has yet to make any finding of wrongdoing.
A property, millions and unanswered questions
The unfolding dispute leaves a series of questions at the heart of the case.
Why was a property advertised for auction subsequently contracted for sale at Sh70 million?
Why was Sanghani allegedly encouraged to make a Sh7 million deposit and further payments if the transaction could not ultimately be completed?
Why was the agreement purportedly cancelled before completion?
And how did the same property eventually end up being sold to third parties for a reported Sh85 million?
For Sanghani, the issue is no longer simply a failed property purchase. He is asking investigators to determine whether he was deliberately induced to part with millions through false representations.
For Mwanza and Rimita, the allegations remain contested matters before the relevant authorities and courts.
The Environment and Land Court has allowed Sanghani to reshape his case to reflect the reported sale, meaning the legal battle is likely to move beyond the question of whether the original sale should be stopped.
The new contest could now revolve around the validity of the transactions, the money already paid, the circumstances surrounding the cancellation, the subsequent Sh85 million sale and the rights of the third-party purchasers.
The matter has been placed before the Deputy Registrar for a pre-trial conference on November 4, 2026.
Until the investigations and court proceedings are concluded, the allegations contained in Sanghani’s complaint remain allegations and not established findings of fraud or criminal liability.
There's no story that cannot be told. We cover the stories that others don't want to be told, we bring you all the news you need. If you have tips, exposes or any story you need to be told bluntly and all queries write to us [email protected] also find us on Telegram
