Ngunyi v Airbnb Ireland UC (Civil Case E080 of 2026) [2026] SCC 40 (KLR) (17 June 2026) (Judgment)

Ngunyi v Airbnb Ireland UC (Civil Case E080 of 2026) [2026] SCC 40 (KLR) (17 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 40 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Small Claims Court at Mombasa Civil Case E080 of 2026 TN Mwangeka, RM June 17, 2026 Between Elvis Ngunyi Claimant and Airbnb Ireland UC Respondent Judgment 1.The facts in this matter are largely uncontested. What is disputed is the reason as to why the Respondent reversed a refund payment originally approved to the Claimant. Briefly, the Claimant was a host under the Respondent’s platform. He put in a request for refund of USD 1850 for the repair of a television set that was damaged by a guest during their stay on 5th June 2024. As per the Claimant, the Respondent in line with its procedures, investigated, verified and approved payment of the refund only to later reverse the same after depositing it in the Claimant’s host ledger account. The Claimant therefore asserts that this was in breach of the Respondent’s contractual obligations under the Airbnb hosting arrangement and AirCover/Host Damage Protection Terms. 2.The Respondent on the other hand while admitting to have investigated, verified and approved the Claimant’s refund request states that upon further investigations before effecting the transfer, the Respondent established the claim to be fraudulent hence the reversal. 3.The court has perused the Host Damage Protection terms, which is the operating agreement between the parties. Since the same has not been attacked by either party on grounds of fraud, coercion or undue influence the court will uphold the stipulated terms thereunder and not attempt to rewrite the same. This court has thus established 4.that at clause 2.3 of the terms, the Respondent guarantees a host, such as the Claimant herein, compensation for any HDP Losses, subject to the Host Damage Protection Terms. As a guarantee, this means the Respondent will only compensate the Claimant for HDP Losses if the Responsible Guest fails to satisfy their primary obligation under the Terms to pay up for such HDP Losses. At paragraph 2.4, it states that the guarantee is solely for the purpose of promoting the Airbnb Platform by building customer loyalty and strengthening customer confidence in the use of the Airbnb Platform and is subject to the Respondent’s right to deny full or partial payment under these Host Damage Protection Terms if the client fails to comply, at any time, with their obligations under our Terms, Payments Terms, Community Policies, and Community Standards. 5.From the evidence on record, the Respondent on 5th July 2024 approved payment of USD 1850 to the Claimant as a result of damages incurred based on reservation HM5E39ATFN. On 10th July 2024 however, the Respondent via email informed the Claimant that this reservation HM5E39ATFN did not appear to be legitimate and as a result, was canceled and the payment refunded. 6.A wholistic reading of the Host Damages Terms reveals that the Respondent at the point of receiving an application for payment of eligible host damages, conducts independent investigations and testing around the circumstances of the incident, reviews communication history of the Claimant and the guest and looks into any possible fraudulent activities that maybe present. This can be found at Clause 3.5, 3.7 and Clause 9 of the terms. 7.Further, Clause 3.5 specifically states that independent investigations and testing are conducted even where the Claimant has complied with the terms of the policy. The investigation report filed by the Respondent revealed that the Claimant and guest accounts were all created within one month of each other with no other history of reservations by either account. Further the photos attached to the refund report of the television did not correspond to the photos of the listing in the website. Finally, the repair assessment report availed was suspicious containing unverifiable contact details of the maker. 8.In Moses Parantai & Peris Wanjiku Mukuru suing as the legal representatives of the estate of Sospeter Mukuru Mbeere (deceased) v Stephen Njoroge Macharia [2020] eKLR, the Court of Appeal observed as follows:“……. Fraud is a quasi-criminal charge which must, as already stated, not only be specifically pleaded but also proved on a standard though below beyond reasonable double doubt, but above balance of probabilities……” 9.The Respondent has pleaded and filed an investigative report to prove the allegations of fraud by the Claimant. The Claimant has attempted to rebut this evidence by stating that the television had been upgraded from earlier listing photographs and there was no contractual obligation requiring updated listing images; and the Respondent approved the exact repair item and amount after reviewing the evidence submitted. This is however in direct opposition to the Terms of Service for Users the EEA, UK, and Australia specifically clause 5.1 that requires listing information (including calendar availability) and content (like photos) up-to-date and accurate at all times. Additionally, the fact that the Claimant did not avail the repair person as a witness to prove that indeed repairs were done was detrimental to their case as the repairs have been disputed by the Respondent. It therefore fell upon the Claimant to rebut the same conclusively. Moreover, as stated earlier on in this judgment, the Respondent reserves the right to conduct independent investigations and testing even where the Claimant has complied with the terms of the policy. 10.Additionally, it is also not true as claimed by the Claimant that there is no evidence of any formal enforcement action taken against the Claimant’s account arising from the subject claim. The subject transaction was cancelled on 10th July 2024 after it was found to be illegitimate, the investigation report clearly states that the Claimant’s account and the guest account were ghosted for Tier 1: host and guest chargeback as a result of this Reservation, lastly, on 15th January 2026 the Claimant was informed of the removal of his account from the platform. The Claimant has admitted in its evidence that their account has been subjected to administrative sanction. The explanations offered by the Claimant therefore have not dislodged the evidence filed by the Respondent. 11.Based on the evidence on record, this court finds that the Respondent was well within its rights as under Clause 9 to cancel the pending payment to the Claimant on account of the fraud identified. In the end therefore, this court finds that the Claimant has not proved its case on a balance of probabilities and dismiss the claim with no orders as to costs. DATED SIGNED AND READ VIRTUALLY AT MOMBASA THE 17TH OF JUNE 2026HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKARESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATORIn the presence of;Mr. Kawamara.........for Claimant;Ms Kariuki Owesi h/b for Othero....for Respondent C/A EstherSigned by/for:HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKAMOMBASA SMALL CLAIMS COURTDATE: 2026-06-17 12:08:03