wakimani
Elder Lister
The High Court Has Confirmed That WhatsApp Chats Can Create a Binding Contract
The High Court has upheld a KSh 145,000 judgment arising from an agreement that was never written, never signed, and never stamped. In Fredrick Ochiel v Kennedy Okoth (2026), the Court dealt with a dispute over an ultrasound machine that had been leased based on phone calls and WhatsApp messages. The machine was collected, used, partially paid for, and never returned. When payment was demanded, the defence was simple: there was no agreement. The Court disagreed. It found that the parties had agreed on the daily charge, acted on that agreement, and communicated consistently about payment and return through their phones.In dismissing the appeal, the Court reaffirmed a settled but often ignored principle of contract law: a contract does not have to be written to be enforceable. Oral agreements are valid if offer, acceptance, and consideration can be proved. In this case, the WhatsApp messages, SMS exchanges, partial payment, and conduct of the parties left no doubt that there was a meeting of minds. The Court was clear that courts will not rewrite contracts or rescue parties from bargains they voluntarily entered into, unless there is fraud, coercion, or illegality. “There was no written agreement” was not a defence where the evidence showed otherwise.For the ordinary mwananchi, this judgment is a quiet but powerful warning. If you agree on terms over WhatsApp, take someone’s property, benefit from it, and promise to pay, the law will hold you to that promise. Your messages are not just casual chats; they can become legal evidence. Before dismissing a dispute with “tulikua tunaongea tu,” remember this decision. In today’s Kenya, a phone conversation can create real legal obligations with real financial consequences.
The High Court has upheld a KSh 145,000 judgment arising from an agreement that was never written, never signed, and never stamped. In Fredrick Ochiel v Kennedy Okoth (2026), the Court dealt with a dispute over an ultrasound machine that had been leased based on phone calls and WhatsApp messages. The machine was collected, used, partially paid for, and never returned. When payment was demanded, the defence was simple: there was no agreement. The Court disagreed. It found that the parties had agreed on the daily charge, acted on that agreement, and communicated consistently about payment and return through their phones.In dismissing the appeal, the Court reaffirmed a settled but often ignored principle of contract law: a contract does not have to be written to be enforceable. Oral agreements are valid if offer, acceptance, and consideration can be proved. In this case, the WhatsApp messages, SMS exchanges, partial payment, and conduct of the parties left no doubt that there was a meeting of minds. The Court was clear that courts will not rewrite contracts or rescue parties from bargains they voluntarily entered into, unless there is fraud, coercion, or illegality. “There was no written agreement” was not a defence where the evidence showed otherwise.For the ordinary mwananchi, this judgment is a quiet but powerful warning. If you agree on terms over WhatsApp, take someone’s property, benefit from it, and promise to pay, the law will hold you to that promise. Your messages are not just casual chats; they can become legal evidence. Before dismissing a dispute with “tulikua tunaongea tu,” remember this decision. In today’s Kenya, a phone conversation can create real legal obligations with real financial consequences.