[2025] KEHC 9063 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 9063 (KLR)

The High Court found that the oral agreement between the parties was for property management and not for the disposition of an interest in land, rendering Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act inapplicable. The respondent discharged the legal burden of proof by producing M-Pesa statements and credible testimony, which the appellant failed to rebut. The court held that electronic records are admissible under Section 78A of the Evidence Act and that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence. The appellant's arguments regarding the lack of written agreement and the authenticity of the M-Pesa statements were rejected. The trial court's award of costs was within its discretion. The...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 9063 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Ronald Odhiambo Olande; Respondent: Bashir-Ud-Hassan Ali Juma Hajee
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
26 June 2025
Case Number
Civil Appeal E1022 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
AN Ongeri
Legal Topics
Oral Contracts, Burden of Proof, Admissibility of Electronic Evidence, Property Management Agreements
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Oral Contracts Burden of Proof Admissibility of Electronic Evidence Property Management Agreements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Odhiambo Olande

Appellant

Bashir-Ud-Hassan Ali Juma Hajee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the oral property management agreement between the parties was enforceable under Kenyan law.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent discharged the legal burden of proof to establish the appellant's liability for unremitted rent.
  3. 3 Whether M-Pesa statements were admissible and sufficient evidence of payment under the Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the oral agreement between the parties was for property management and not for the disposition of an interest in land, rendering Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act inapplicable. The respondent discharged the legal burden of proof by producing M-Pesa statements and credible testimony, which the appellant failed to rebut. The court held that electronic records are admissible under Section 78A of the Evidence Act and that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence. The appellant's arguments regarding the lack of written agreement and the authenticity of the M-Pesa statements were rejected. The trial court's award of costs was within its discretion. The...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • The decree of the lower court is affirmed.