The High Court in Siaya has upheld a decision requiring a biomedical technician to pay KSh 145,000 for the use of an ultrasound machine, reinforcing the principle that business agreements confirmed through WhatsApp and text messages can be legally binding.
The dispute arose from a 2024 arrangement between Kennedy Okoth, the owner of the ultrasound machine, and Fredrick Ochiel, who collected the equipment for professional use. Okoth told the court that the two agreed during a phone call that the machine would be rented at KSh 1,000 per day, an understanding later reflected in WhatsApp and SMS exchanges discussing payment timelines, delays, and the return of the machine.
In its ruling, the court noted that modern commercial transactions increasingly rely on electronic communication and held that parties who choose to transact through such channels cannot later disown their obligations simply because the outcome proves unfavourable. Justice David Kemei reiterated that courts will not interfere with contracts freely entered into unless their terms are illegal, oppressive, unconscionable, or fraudulent.
Also Read: Safaricom Control Shift Draws Scrutiny From EAC and COMESA Regulators
Ochiel denied that any rental terms had been agreed, arguing that the machine was defective and that there was no settled price or daily charge. He also challenged the admissibility of the WhatsApp and SMS messages, claiming that without a formal written contract or proper certification of the communications, there was no proof of a binding agreement.
The court rejected these arguments, finding that the digital messages were central to establishing the parties’ relationship. It ruled that the WhatsApp exchanges reflected ongoing business discussions rather than casual conversation, particularly around payment obligations. Ochiel’s subsequent transfer of funds to Okoth, documented within the same message trail, was taken as evidence that he understood the arrangement to involve payment.
The court further observed that Ochiel had earlier withdrawn his objection to the admissibility of the messages and did not challenge them when they were produced at trial. As a result, the communications were accepted as evidence of the agreed terms. Together with Ochiel’s conduct in collecting and using the machine, the court found that the digital correspondence demonstrated a clear and enforceable business agreement.
