Mugania & 3 others (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Jeremiah Mungania Ayub - Deceased) & 2 others v Meru County Government & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E008 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 117 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed WhatsApp messages received in a group chat can be used as court evidence, but only with a certificate under Section 106B of the Evidence Act.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether WhatsApp messages received by a member of a Group WhatsApp Wall are admissible in evidence over objections based on the Data Protection Act and the Evidence Act
- 2.Whether Section 106B of the Evidence Act applies to civil proceedings and requires a certificate for electronic messages
Key legal issues
#Admissibility of WhatsApp messages objected to under the Data Protection Act and on grounds of unknown authors and uncertified printouts
A recipient of messages posted on a Group WhatsApp Wall may tender them in evidence; general objections citing no specific provision of the Data Protection Act or Evidence Act fail, and the objection should have been raised during pre-trial
The objectors relied on the Data Protection Act and the Evidence Act in general terms without citing any specific section. The plaintiffs' witness was a member of the Group WhatsApp Wall and received the messages, so as a recipient he could not be blocked from producing them. No provision was cited preventing a group member from tendering another member's post. The objection also came too late, having not been raised at pre-trial despite Order 11 procedures.
Whether certification under Section 106B of the Evidence Act is required for WhatsApp messages in a civil suit
Yes; Section 106B applies to both criminal and civil proceedings, and the printed WhatsApp messages must be accompanied by a relevant certificate to be admitted
Counsel for the plaintiffs argued that there was no mandatory certification requirement in civil suits and that Section 106B did not apply to civil proceedings. The court rejected this, holding that the section applies equally to criminal and civil proceedings. Admissibility is therefore conditional on attaching a certificate to the printed messages as required by the section.
Legal principles established
#- A member and recipient of a Group WhatsApp Wall cannot be blocked from producing messages that he received
- Section 106B of the Evidence Act applies to both criminal and civil proceedings, and electronic messages require a certificate to be admitted
Court orders
#- 1.Objection to production of the WhatsApp messages overruled; the messages are admissible as part of PW3's evidence subject to compliance with Section 106B of the Evidence Act by attaching a relevant certificate
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (specific provision not cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Plaintiffs' position that Section 106B of the Evidence Act does not apply to civil proceedings and that no certificate is required
The court held that Section 106B applies to both criminal and civil proceedings, so the certificate requirement must be met
Costs
No order on costs made in the judgment
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the end, the finding of the court on the objection is that subject to compliance with Section 106B of the Evidence Act, the WhatsApp messages are admissible as part of PW3’s evidence.
Section 106B of the Evidence Act applies to both criminal and civil proceedings.
As one of the recipients, he cannot be blocked from producing the WhatsApp messages that he received.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to both PW2 and PW3 in connection with Muthomi Mungania and the WhatsApp messages, creating inconsistency as to the witness number
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mugania & 3 others (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Jeremiah Mungania Ayub - Deceased) & 2 others v Meru County Government & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E008 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 117 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/117/eng@2026-01-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.