They placed their bets, won, but the payouts never came. Now, a group of winners is taking betting companies to court, exposing the tensions between Kenya’s booming gambling industry and the rights of its customers.
Nation Lifestyle examines a series of court cases, some in which bettors were able to recover their winnings and others in which their claims were rejected.
Clair Nyabayo sued Shop and Deliver Limited t/a Betika, saying that she had accumulated winnings amounting to Sh99.9 million on a platform operated by Betika. She withdrew Sh140,000 before her account was frozen. She sued the company, but it attributed the winnings to the exploitation of a system error and declined further payout.
The dispute was initially referred to the Betting Control and Licensing Board (BCLB), which found that the applicable “terms and conditions” capped winnings at Sh1 million, awarding that amount and voiding any excess.
Unhappy, Nyabayo appealed to the High Court, arguing that the payout cap was either not in force at the time or had been unfairly introduced. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that payment of the full amount would amount to unjust enrichment, particularly in light of the asserted system anomaly.
The application was opposed on the basis that Section 62 of the Betting, Lotteries and Gaming Act renders decisions of the High Court final in such matters.
In another case, Bosco Otieno tried to close his Betika account for good. Betika, however, said it could only do so after he shared a copy of his national ID and three months of M-Pesa statements.
He went to court arguing that Betika’s extra demands were unnecessary and intrusive, and violated the rules on lawful data handling under the Data Protection Act, 2019. He said asking for his financial statements, something that had not been required when he opened the account, was an unlawful way of blocking his right to have his data deleted.
Betika defended its position by saying anti–money laundering laws require it to carry out checks before closing an account. According to the company, shutting down an account is treated as a transaction, meaning it must confirm the customer’s identity and where the money came from.
Gambling has become an addiction.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
The Data Commissioner found that while requiring an ID for purposes of verification was lawful, the demand for three months’ M-Pesa statements was excessive and not strictly necessary for the purpose of account deletion. The Office ruled that the financial data requested included personal information that was not necessary for deleting the account, and therefore violated the principles of data minimisation and purpose limitation.
It further held that, in the absence of any clear suspicion or risk trigger, the demand for additional information was not justified.
The Data Commissioner ordered the betting company to pay Bosco Sh250,000 in compensation for the violation, and issued an enforcement notice requiring compliance with data protection principles. The parties were granted a right of appeal to the High Court.
Deactivation request snubbed
Another punter, Mark Ndung’u, had registered for betting services with Shop & Deliver (Betika). Shortly thereafter, he requested closure of his account, citing concerns about his betting behaviour. Despite multiple follow-ups, the account was not immediately deactivated, during which period the petitioner continued to place bets and allegedly incurred losses amounting to Sh110,362.
The High Court considered whether a betting operator’s delay in closing a customer’s account could amount to a violation of constitutional consumer rights.
Mark argued that the betting company’s failure to promptly close the account violated his rights under Article 46 of the Constitution and the Consumer Protection Act, arguing that betting services—being inherently addictive—impose a heightened duty of care on operators, particularly where a user expresses intent to disengage. He also said the delay allowed him to keep gambling, which increased his losses and affected both his health and financial situation.
The betting company, however, said the relationship was purely contractual and governed by agreed terms and industry regulations. It argued that closing an account involves set procedures, including identity checks and internal reviews. The company also said the customer had continued betting voluntarily even after being advised to leave the account inactive. It further disputed claims that Mark had a gambling addiction that required intervention.
The High Court ruled that the relationship between the two parties was purely contractual, based on voluntary registration on the betting platform and governed by existing laws, not the Constitution. It therefore held that any complaint, including delays in closing an account, should be handled as a civil dispute and not through a constitutional petition. No orders as to costs were made.
In another case, the High Court looked at whether a regulatory decision ordering a betting company to pay winnings to a customer could be enforced.
Geoffrey Ngoge had obtained a determination from the BCLB directing Advanced Gaming to pay him Sh2.3 million, winnings accumulated on its platform. Despite the directive, the betting company failed to comply.
Geoffrey moved to the High Court, seeking to have the BCLB’s decision adopted as a judgment of the Court for purposes of enforcement.
The application was therefore allowed, and the award was enforced as a judgment debt under the Civil Procedure Rules. The court also made no order on costs.
Another case, David Juma sued Shop and Deliver Limited (Betika), for refusal to pay alleged betting winnings.
He argued that he correctly predicted the outcome of eight football matches under a jackpot bet, thereby entitling him to a payout of Sh500,000. The betting firm, however, disputed, maintaining that only seven of the eight predictions were correct and that the claimant therefore did not qualify for the jackpot.
The dispute mainly revolved around how the match results should be interpreted and whether the betting slip had enough detail. The issue was that the slip did not clearly state the league division for one of the matches, creating confusion about which game was actually included in the bet. David insisted that his prediction matched the correct result, while the betting company relied on a different match to reject his claim.
Upon evaluating the evidence, including betting slips, transaction records, and match results, the court ruled in favour of David.
It ordered Betika to pay Sh500,000 (jackpot winnings), costs of the lawsuit and interest from the date the winnings became due.
