The High Court in Siaya has upheld a ruling ordering a biomedical technician to pay KSh 145,000 for the use of an ultrasound machine, signaling that business agreements confirmed through WhatsApp and text messages can carry the same weight as formal contracts.
- •The case stemmed from a 2024 arrangement between Kennedy Okoth, who owned the machine, and Fredrick Ochiel, who collected it for professional use.
- •Okoth said the two agreed by phone that the machine would be rented at KSh1,000 per day, an understanding later reflected in WhatsApp and text exchanges discussing payments, delays, and the return of the equipment.
- •The court held that modern commercial dealings often rely on electronic communication and that parties who transact on that basis cannot later deny the consequences simply because the deal turned out to be unfavorable.
“It is trite law that courts will not interfere with contracts entered into by two consenting parties and the interest agreed upon unless the terms are on the face of it illegal, unconscionable, oppressive and fraudulent,” ruled Justice David Kemei.
Ochiel had disputed that any rental terms were agreed. He told the court that the machine was faulty and that there was no settled price or daily charge. He also challenged the use of WhatsApp and text messages as evidence, arguing that without a formal written contract or proper certification of the messages, there was no proof of a binding agreement.
The High Court rejected that position, finding that the digital messages were central to understanding the parties’ relationship. The court held that the WhatsApp exchanges did not read as casual chat but as ongoing business communication about payment obligations. The fact that Ochiel later sent money to Okoth, an action reflected in the same message trail, was taken as confirmation that he understood the arrangement to involve payment.
The court also noted that Ochiel had earlier withdrawn his objection to the admissibility of the messages and did not challenge them when they were presented at trial. As a result, the messages were treated as accepted evidence of what had been agreed. Combined with Ochiel’s conduct in collecting and using the machine, the court found that the digital correspondence showed a clear business understanding.
