Onyoni v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited (Claim E3869 of 2024) [2025] SCC 64 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a bank does not compensate customers for fraud losses when transactions come from the customer's own linked phone number.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent breached its duty of care through negligence and fraud
No breach established; transactions were initiated through the Claimant's linked phone number via OTP authorization, and the bank's only duty was to act on instructions from that number
The court found it common ground that the Claimant received OTPs for the disputed transactions on her linked phone, showing the transactions originated from her number. No evidence linked the scam call to the Respondent's staff, no particulars of negligence or fraud were pleaded or proved, and the unimpeached forensic report attributed the loss to remote access by an unknown person. The bank therefore executed valid instructions and bore no liability.
Weight to attach to the Respondent's forensic/expert report
The court adopted the RW1 forensic report as the Claimant neither impeached RW1's qualifications nor produced a contradicting report or reasons to depart from it
The court noted expert opinion is not binding but found RW1's two years' experience and fraud investigation certifications uncontroverted. In the absence of a contrary fraud analysis report or good reasons to depart, the forensic report's findings stood and supported the conclusion that the Respondent's systems were not porous and the loss was not attributable to the bank.
Legal principles established
#- A bank owes its customer a contractual duty to exercise reasonable care and skill across the whole range of banking business within the contract, including acting in accordance with the customer's instructions
- Fraud must be specifically pleaded with particulars and distinctly proved; it cannot be inferred from facts
- Where mobile banking transactions emanate from the customer's linked phone number, the bank's duty is discharged by executing instructions from that number
- The standard of proof for fraud in civil matters is higher than balance of probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is dismissed
- 2.The Claimant to pay costs of Kshs. 20,000/= to the Respondent
- 3.File closed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court over the claimant's statement of claim
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onyoni v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited (Claim E3869 of 2024) [2025] SCC 64 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Small Claims Court claim, Bungoma). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2025/64/eng@2025-09-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.