Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Small ClaimsDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] SCC 40 (KLR)

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

Small Claims Court
17 June 2026
TMTheresa N. Mwangeka
1,078 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Mombasa Small Claims Court dismissed a Kenyan Airbnb host's USD 1,850 claim, finding the refund reversal was justified by credible evidence of fraud.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant, a host on the Respondent's platform, claimed USD 1,850 as a refund for a television damaged by a guest on 5th June 2024 under reservation HM5E39ATFN. He contended that the Respondent investigated, verified and approved the refund under the Host Damage Protection Terms, deposited it into his host ledger, and then wrongfully reversed it in breach of contract. The Respondent admitted approving the payment but said further pre-transfer investigations revealed the claim to be fraudulent, justifying the reversal. The court upheld the Host Damage Protection Terms, which were unchallenged for fraud, coercion or undue influence, noting that Clause 2.3 provides a guarantee payable only where a Responsible Guest fails to pay, and that Clauses 3.5, 3.7 and 9 permit independent investigations even where the host has complied with the policy. The Respondent's investigation found the host and guest accounts were created within a month of each other with no reservation history, the damage photographs did not match the listing, and the repair assessment bore unverifiable contacts. Applying the Parantai standard that fraud must be pleaded and proved above the balance of probabilities, the court found the Respondent had discharged its burden, while the Claimant failed to rebut the evidence - notably by not calling the repair person. Enforcement action had in fact been taken, including cancellation of the transaction and eventual removal of the Claimant's account. The claim was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent could reverse an approved refund payment

Holding

The Respondent acted within its rights under Clause 9 of the Host Damage Protection Terms to cancel the pending payment on account of identified fraud

Reasoning

The Terms permitted independent investigations and testing even where the host had complied with the policy. The investigation revealed that the Claimant and guest accounts were created within a month of each other with no reservation history, the photos of the television did not correspond to the listing, and the repair assessment report contained unverifiable contact details. This evidence of fraud was not conclusively rebutted, and enforcement action was in fact taken against the accounts.

p. 3
02

Standard of proof of fraud

Holding

Fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved to a standard above balance of probabilities; the Respondent pleaded and adduced an investigative report in support of its fraud allegation

Reasoning

The court adopted the Court of Appeal's formulation in Moses Parantai that fraud is a quasi-criminal charge requiring proof above balance of probabilities. The Respondent pleaded fraud and filed an investigative report. The Claimant's explanations - that the television had been upgraded and that the Respondent had initially approved the claim - contradicted the Terms requiring listing information to be kept up to date and accurate at all times, and the Claimant did not call the repair person as a witness.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Fraud is a quasi-criminal charge which must be specifically pleaded and proved to a standard above balance of probabilities
  • A court will uphold the stipulated terms of an unchallenged agreement and not rewrite them for the parties

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The claim is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Cases cited (1)

  • Moses Parantai & Peris Wanjiku Mukuru suing as the legal representatives of the estate of Sospeter Mukuru Mbeere (deceased) v Stephen Njoroge Macharia
    [2020] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Small Claims Court (as adjudicated by a Resident Magistrate/Adjudicator); no specific provision quoted

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngunyi v Airbnb Ireland UC (Civil Case E080 of 2026) [2026] SCC 40 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/40/eng@2026-06-17

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.