Njumbi v Shilloh Travel International Limited & another (Commercial Case E1324 of 2025) [2026] SCC 96 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court ordered a travel agent to refund Ksh 560,000 for a failed visa application, confirming agents must issue itemized invoices and handle applications carefully.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Existence of a contractual relationship between the parties
A valid contract existed by conduct; the relative's M-Pesa payment of Ksh 560,000 and the Respondent's own pleading acknowledging receipt established the contract.
The court applied settled principles that offer, acceptance and consideration create a contract, and that a contract may be inferred from conduct. The undisputed payment of Ksh 560,000 by the Claimant's relative via M-Pesa, together with the Respondent's own statement acknowledging receipt of payment for professional visa application services, established privity and a valid contract. The Respondent could not resile from an admission already pleaded.
Professional negligence and failure of consideration
The Respondent, charging a premium of Ksh 186,000 per application, was grossly professionally negligent for failing to vet basic financial documents, resulting in refusal for lack of sufficient financial means.
The court found vetting basic financial documents against an embassy's public checklist is the core of visa advisory services. The visa refusal letter, cited as 'lack of sufficient financial means', was accepted as the official position of the Canadian Embassy under Section 32 of the Small Claims Court Act. The immediate rejection on basic financial gaps evidenced lack of due diligence by the Respondent despite claiming to have taken applicants through the checklist.
Unjust enrichment and entitlement to refund
Without an itemized breakdown or receipts showing any portion of the Ksh 560,000 was remitted to the embassy, holding the lump sum for an unfulfilled outcome constituted unjust enrichment; the Claimant was entitled to a full refund with interest.
The Respondent produced no itemized invoice or receipts proving remittance of any portion of the Ksh 560,000 as embassy fees. Holding a client's lump sum for an unfulfilled and carelessly managed outcome was found to be unjust enrichment in violation of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The claim succeeded in full, with interest at court rates from judgment.
Legal principles established
#- A contract may be inferred from the conduct of the parties and their communications even in the absence of a formal agreement.
- A professional travel agent charging a premium owes a duty of care to its client, and careless management of visa applications constitutes professional negligence.
- Holding a client's lump sum without an itemized invoice or proof of remittance to the embassy, for an unfulfilled outcome, constitutes unjust enrichment contrary to the Consumer Protection Act.
Court orders
#- 1.A basic award of Ksh 560,000/- to be refunded in full by the Respondent to the Claimant
- 2.Interest on the said sum at court rates from the date of judgment until full payment is made
- 3.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Small Claims Court Act (court acting under the Small Claims Court Act, referencing Section 32)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njumbi v Shilloh Travel International Limited & another (Commercial Case E1324 of 2025) [2026] SCC 96 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/96/eng@2026-06-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.