Njumbi v Shilloh Travel International Limited & another (Commercial Case E1324 of 2025) [2026] SCC 96 (KLR)

Analysis and Evidence Evaluation 5. It is well established that the essential elements for a valid contract are an ofier, acceptance and consideration. This position was afirmed by the Learned Judges of the Court of Appeal in Charles Mwirigi Miriti v Thananga Tea Growers Sacco Ltd & another [2014] KECA 538 (KLR). Further, in Timau Agro Industries Limited v National Oil Corporation of Kenya [2025] KEHC 2547 (KLR) the court held that the existence of a contract may be inferred from the conduct of the parties and their communications, even in the absence of a formal agreement. 6. In the present case, it is undisputed that one Farida Kiminya, a relative of the Claimant paid the Respondent Ksh 560,000 via M-Pesa. This financial transaction establishes a clear contract by conduct. The Respondent equally in their statement acknowledge that they received payment from the Claimant for professional visa application services for his kin. I therefore find that a contract does exist between the parties herein and the Respondent cannot now plead otherwise having already pleaded in the positive. 7. The Respondent claims they performed their obligation by taking the visa applicants through the application process. However, the Claimant has produced the Visa Refusal Letter as evidence, which shows the ground for refusal as "lack of suficient financial means." Under Section 32 of the Small Claims Court Act, this Court evaluates the credibility and substance of transactions without undue regard to procedural technicalities. The court will thus take this to be the oficial position of the Canadian Embassy. 8. The Respondent is a professional travel agent, charging a premium of Ksh 186,000 per visa application. As such they owe a duty of care to their client. Vetting basic financial documents against an embassy’s open-source public checklist is the very core of visa advisory services. The Respondent claims to have taken the applicants through the checklist and made the application for them. The question in the court’s mind is how then would the reapplication be fated for immediate rejection due to basic financial gaps if the Respondent made the application with due diligence? I find the Respondent’s conduct to constitute gross professional negligence. 9. Crucially, the Respondent did not provide any itemized breakdown or receipts to show that any portion of the Ksh 560,000 was remitted to the respective embassy as statutory fees. In the absence of an itemized invoice, holding a client’s lump sum for an unfulfilled and carelessly managed outcome constitutes unjust enrichment and violates Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of Kenya. 10. From the evidence on record therefore, the Claimant's case succeeds, and this Court enters judgment in favor of the Claimant against the Respondent as follows: a. A basic award of Ksh 560,000/- to be refunded in full by the Respondent to the Claimant. b. Interest on the said sum at court rates from the date of judgment until full payment is made. c. No orders as to costs. DATED SIGNED AND READ VIRTUALLY AT MOMBASA THE……9TH….DAY OF……JUNE……… 2026 HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKA RESIDENT MAGISTRATE/ADJUDICATOR In the presence of; ……Ms. Oile h/b for Wangila….for Claimant; https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/96/eng@2026-06-09 2

page 2 of 3

……N/A… for Respondent C/A Esther SIGNED BY/FOR: THE JUDICIARY OF KENYA HON. THERESA N. MWANGEKA MOMBASA SMALL CLAIMS COURT SMALL CLAIMS COURT DATE: 2026-06-09 10:17:17 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/96/eng@2026-06-09 3

page 3 of 3