https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/148

Injila v Airtel Kenya Limited (Commercial Case E1401 of 2025) [2026] SCC 148 (KLR) (9 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 148 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Small Claims Court at Mombasa Commercial Case E1401 of 2025 TN Mwangeka, RM June 9, 2026 Between Geoffrey Anyonyi Injila Claimant and Airtel Kenya Limited Respondent Judgment 1.This matter concerns a claim for compensation for Kshs. 1,700/- to the Claimant arising out of an erroneous transaction on the Respondent’s Airtel Money platform. On 26th May 2025, the Claimant alleges to have erroneously made a withdrawal of Kshs. 1,700/- from an Airtel Money Agent. The Claimant further alleges that he made several attempts to have the matter resolved by writing to Airtel Kenya Limited but that his communications were never responded to and that the Respondent failed to take any measures to ensure that he recovered his money. 2.The Respondent on their end maintained that the said transaction indeed took place and that they cannot be held liable for the Claimants negligence while performing the transaction since for the same to happen, the Claimant ought to have been physically at an agents shop and he further ought to have confirmed the details of the agent. 3.On 30th April 2026, the matter proceeded for hearing with the Claimant giving evidence. When cross examined and referred to the Respondent’s Airtel Money Service Terms, the Claimant started that he was unaware of the fact that the Respondent is not obligated to refund an erroneous transaction. Further, that there was no technical error on the part of Airtel regarding the transaction. This is despite being a long-standing customer of the Respondent, conversant with its operations. The Claimant maintained in his Re-examination that the Respondent has an obligation to repay him and that the Terms and Conditions are between the Respondent and their Agents and do not bind him, therefore the Respondent’s should have looked for the Agent. 4.The Respondent on their part called Wycliffe Haggai who works at the operations section of Aritel Money. The witness informed the court that all Airtel Money transactions are initiated by the customer and authorized using their PIN. In the event of a wrong transaction, one is required to contact the Airtel call center. On examination by the court, the said witness stated that any reversal is subject to validation by the Agent and without which the transaction is deemed to be valid. 5.Upon consideration of the documentation filed in respect of both parties, the witness testimonies as well as submissions, this court finds it important to establish whether the Claimant has discharged the legal burden as under Section 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act. 6.Presently, the Claimant has admitted that he was responsible for the error that resulted in Kshs. 1,700/- being withdrawn from the wrong Airtel Money Agent. He also admitted to not following up with the said agent and that the Respondent was the one to shoulder that burden. Moreover, the Claimant did not report the matter to the police for their further action. 7.The court has perused the Airtel Money Services Terms and Conditions. The said terms apply to participants or users of the service as stated, that is any person that participates in the Airtel Money System by using the Airtel Money Services to send or receive money and includes any person that facilitates the redemption of E-Money. Clause 8.13 specifically provides as follows;Airtel will not be compelled to refund or compensate the sender if the E-Money is sent to a recipient mistakenly or in error or fraudulently or under duress and subsequently redeemed for cash or otherwise spent by the recipient of the mistaken erronenous or fraudulent transaction and you hereby agree to hold Airtel harmless for any loss harmless for any losses arising from a mistaken, erroneous or fraudulent transfer of funds or any transfer of funds from your account effected under duress or under coercion or criminal force. 8.In the event of receiving funds in error, Clause 9.2. provides that one is obliged to return the funds to the sender failing which Airtel may reverse the payment to the sender. Further, Clause 9.3. renders one liable to face prosecution for consuming or utilizing funds sent in error. 9.Moreover, Clauses 14.3 and 14.3.1 provide that Airtel will not be responsible for any claim unless caused by wilful default attributable to Airtel. Airtel specifically disclaims all liability for any damages or losses, including, without limitation. direct, indirect, consequential, special, incidental or or losses, including, without limitation, direct, indirect, consequential, special, incidental or punitive damages deemed or alleged to have resulted from or damages deemed or alleged to have resulted from or caused by but not limited to: 14.3.1 Transactions made to unintended recipients or payments made in incorrect amounts due to the input of incorrect information by you. 10.Finally, at Clause 18.11. the participant acknowledges that Airtel Money Agents are independent contractors and Airtel shall not be liable for the acts or omissions of Airtel Money Agents. 11.The above clauses as highlighted herein have been distilled as the most relevant to the present dispute. 12.The Claimant has argued that the terms do not apply to him but to the Airtel Money Agents alone. He also claimed that he was unaware of the existence of the said terms of service despite being a long-standing subscriber of the Respondent’s services. Lastly, the Claimant insists that the Respondent had the duty to follow up with the Money Agent that retained his money. 13.As stated earlier, the Airtel Money Services Terms bind any any person that participates in the Airtel Money System by using the Airtel Money Services to send or receive money and includes any person that facilitates the redemption of E-Money. This includes the Claimant. The said terms are clear as to what should happen in the event of a wrongful transaction. They go further to state that criminal prosecution may result on anyone consuming money sent by error. The Claimant’s remedy therefore lies in the Criminal Court against the specific Airtel Money Agent and not the Respondent, as the terms limit any liability on the part of the Respondent for acts of their money agents. From the evidence on record, the Claimant stated that he has not reported the matter to the police. It is not the Respondent’s responsibility to file a police report as they are not the complainants but the medium through which the transaction was carried out. 14.Equally, the Claimant has not demonstrated that the Airtel Money Terms and Conditions were illegal, unconscionable or procured through fraud. Consequently, this Court will uphold the contractual provisions limiting the Respondent’s liability for erroneous customer transactions and not rewrite the same. 15.In the end, based on the Claimant’s own admission of responsibility for the error coupled with the limiting provisions of the Airtel Money Terms and Conditions, this court finds that Claimant has not proved its case for refund on a balance of probabilities. The claim is thus dismissed with no orders as to costs. DATED SIGNED AND READ VIRTUALLY AT MOMBASA THE………9th ….DAY OF………JUNE… 2026HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKARESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATORIn the presence of;Claimant Present in Person;Mr. Shimoli……for Respondent C/A EstherSigned By/For:THE JUDICIARY OF KENYAHON. THERESA N. MWANGEKAMOMBASA SMALL CLAIMS COURTSMALL CLAIMS COURTDATE: 2026-06-09 10:35:50