A court has halted the auction of a Nairobi businesswoman's property after she argued she was condemned unheard because court papers were served through WhatsApp.
The dispute centres on whether WhatsApp messages' “grey ticks” confirm successful delivery to one’s phone, raising broader questions about digital court processes and the right to a fair hearing.
On WhatsApp, a grey tick tells you the status of your message. One grey tick means that your message has successfully left your phone and reached WhatsApp's servers, but it hasn't reached the recipient yet.
Two grey ticks mean that your message has been successfully delivered to the recipient’s device, but they haven't opened or read it yet.
The businesswoman, Jackie Kiaraho, argued that she did not receive the court documents on WhatsApp, nor was she aware of documents left with a security guard as part of an undefended employment case in which auctioneers are seeking to attach her property to recover more than Sh1million awarded to a former security officer, Peter Njonja Bundi.
The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi granted a stay of execution of the planned auction, allowing Kiaraho to settle the decree under the court's supervision, saying a stay would avert any further miscarriage of justice while the matter was addressed.
"The stay of execution will be allowed to allow the applicant to settle the claim under the court's supervision to avert any further miscarriage of justice," the judge said, in a ruling that highlights fresh questions over the reliability of digital service in litigation.
Grey ticks as proof of delivery
The decision leaves unresolved the central dispute over whether the employer received proper notice of the case before judgment was entered against her.
Ms Kiaraho told the court she only learnt of the proceedings on February 26 this year when Mamalo Auctioneers arrived at her Runda residence and proclaimed her movable property under a warrant issued to enforce the judgment.
She said she had never been served with the claim, summons or other court documents and therefore lost the opportunity to defend herself.
According to her application, one affidavit of service claimed court papers were sent to her through WhatsApp, relying on screenshots showing two grey ticks as proof of delivery.
A second affidavit stated that documents were later left with a security guard identified only as "Ben" at the gate of her residence in Tigoni.
Ms Kiaraho disputed both methods. She argued that the WhatsApp messages did not prove she actually received or read the documents and that leaving papers with a security guard did not amount to personal service required under the law.
"The irregular service denied her the opportunity to defend the suit, resulting in an ex parte judgment that is liable to be set aside to prevent a miscarriage of justice," her advocate told the court.
She also denied directly employing Mr Bundi, saying he worked intermittently as a casual night guard through a private security company at Jadav Gardens in Tigoni rather than for her personally.
She further argued that part of the claim was time-barred and maintained that any termination followed the claimant's alleged failure to prevent a felony on the premises in October 2020.
WhatsApp delivery indicators
Mr Bundi opposed the application, insisting the employer had been properly served throughout the proceedings.
He said his advocates physically served the pleadings before also transmitting them through WhatsApp to a mobile number he said belonged to Ms Kiaraho.
He told the court screenshots demonstrated successful delivery of the documents.
"Electronic service through messaging platforms such as WhatsApp has been recognised and accepted by Kenyan courts as a valid mode of service," Mr Bundi’s advocates argued.
He added that Ms Kiaraho never denied owning or using the mobile number and deliberately ignored the proceedings despite receiving court documents, a decree and execution notices through the same platform.
Mr Bundi also said auctioneers unsuccessfully attempted to notify her by telephone before commencing execution.
"The applicant had actual knowledge of these proceedings but deliberately chose to ignore the same," he argued.
He described the application as an afterthought intended to delay enforcement of a lawful judgment.
The dispute arose after Mr Bundi sued over the end of his employment as a night guard, claiming he had worked continuously between 2015 and 2020 before being unfairly dismissed.
In March 2025, the court entered judgment in his favour after the employer failed to enter an appearance. He was awarded Sh992,146 plus interest and costs, bringing the decretal amount to slightly more than Sh1 million before execution commenced.
Although the ruling temporarily stops the auction, it leaves open the broader question increasingly confronting Kenyan courts as litigation shifts to digital platforms: whether WhatsApp delivery indicators alone provide sufficient proof that court documents reached the intended recipient and that the right to be heard was fully protected.
