Are WhatsApp screenshots admissible as evidence in Kenya?

A Kisumu advocate built an entire defamation suit on words posted in WhatsApp groups. He had the screenshots. He lost anyway, and on appeal the High Court explained why in one sentence: he never produced a certificate of electronic evidence to prove the screenshots in fact came from his phone and were sent by the man he was suing.¹ That is the gap between what most people believe and what the courts actually require. So the honest answer to whether WhatsApp screenshots are admissible as evidence in Kenya is: yes, the messages are admissible, but a bare screenshot of them usually is not. This guide explains the rule that decides the difference, the certificate the courts demand, how to capture and authenticate WhatsApp evidence so it survives a challenge, and the mistakes that get a screenshot thrown out.

Short answer: yes, but a bare screenshot usually fails

Electronic messages and digital material are admissible as evidence in Kenya. The Evidence Act says so directly: in any legal proceedings, electronic messages and digital material are admissible, and a court is not to deny admissibility only on the ground that the evidence is not in its original form.² So the popular line that “WhatsApp can’t be used in a Kenyan court” is wrong, and you can stop worrying about it.

The real problem is the next step. When you want to rely on the contents of an electronic record, the Act routes you through a separate provision that carries conditions, and one of those conditions is a certificate. The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with section 106B.³ A computer output, which is what a printed or copied WhatsApp message is, is admissible as a document without further proof of the original only where the conditions in section 106B are satisfied, and those conditions include the production of a signed certificate.⁴

The Court of Appeal has called that certificate a mandatory requirement, enacted for a reason: electronic evidence can be manipulated, and the conditions exist to vouchsafe its authenticity and integrity.⁵ So the honest answer to “are WhatsApp screenshots admissible as evidence in Kenya” is: the messages are admissible, but a bare screenshot, handed up with nothing to authenticate it, usually fails because it lacks the certificate the law requires. The screenshot is not the evidence. The screenshot plus the certificate is.

Why a bare WhatsApp screenshot gets thrown out

It helps to see the failure as a catalogue, because each item is a separate reason a court can refuse to act on your screenshot. These are drawn from how the courts have actually ruled.

• No certificate at all. This is the one that sinks most cases. In the Kisumu defamation appeal, the entire suit collapsed because the appellant “failed to produce the certificate of electronic evidence of the WhatsApp screenshots.”⁶ The court was explicit that the certificate “is a mandatory requirement in the absence of which the WhatsApp messages cannot be admitted as evidence.”⁷
• No proof the message came from the right phone or the right person. The same passage tells you what the certificate is for: to prove the screenshots in fact emanated from the producer’s phone and were sent by the respondent. A screenshot on its own cannot establish authorship. Anyone can be added to a group, change a display name, or screenshot a forwarded message.
• Integrity is not vouched for. The Court of Appeal made the point that the law assumes electronic evidence can be manipulated, and the section 106B conditions exist precisely to address that risk.⁸ A cropped or selectively captured chat invites the obvious objection that you are showing only what suits you.
• It is treated as a copy with no original behind it. A screenshot is a computer output, a copy. Without the certificate, you are asking the court to accept a copy of an electronic record without the statutory route that makes a copy admissible as a document.

The thread running through all of these is the same: the law does not doubt that WhatsApp can be evidence; it doubts an unauthenticated screenshot. Fix the authentication and the objection disappears.

Section 78A vs section 106B: which one applies to a WhatsApp screenshot

Most of the confusion online comes from two provisions that appear to point in different directions. It is worth holding them apart, because knowing which one bites is the whole game.

Section 78A is the admissibility-and-weight provision. It says electronic messages and digital material are admissible, that a court will not refuse them just because they are not in original form, and then it sets out the factors a court weighs when deciding how much to trust them: the reliability of the way the evidence was generated, stored or communicated; the reliability of the way its integrity was maintained; the way the originator was identified; and any other relevant factor.⁹ Notice that section 78A does not, on its own text, demand a certificate.

Section 106B is the certificate provision. It says a computer output is admissible as a document, without further proof of the original, only where its conditions are met, and one of those conditions is a signed certificate describing how the record was produced.¹⁰

So which one applies to your WhatsApp screenshot? The practical answer, from the cases, is section 106B. When you are tendering the contents of a WhatsApp chat as a printout or screenshot, the courts have required the section 106B certificate and, in the leading WhatsApp case, dismissed the suit for want of it, the Kisumu defamation appeal being the clearest WhatsApp example.¹¹ Section 78A tells you the evidence is admissible in principle and lists the factors that determine its weight; section 106B is the gate you have to pass through to get the contents in as a document in the first place. Treat section 78A(3) as your checklist for making the evidence convincing, and section 106B as the non-negotiable formality for getting it admitted.

There is one important qualification, covered below: section 106B is not always required. Where a witness analyses the device data herself and gives it as primary expert evidence, the Court of Appeal has held no certificate is needed.¹² But for the ordinary litigant tendering a screenshot, plan on the certificate.

The section 106B certificate, step by step

This is the centrepiece, and it is where every competing article goes quiet. The certificate is not a mysterious court form. The Act tells you exactly what it must contain. Section 106B(4) lists four things the certificate must do, and the certificate must address the conditions in section 106B(2). Here is each limb, in plain terms, applied to a WhatsApp chat. This is how we prepare the certificate when a matter turns on a WhatsApp exchange.

Limb (a): identify the record and describe how it was produced. The certificate must identify the electronic record containing the statement and describe the manner in which it was produced.¹³ For WhatsApp, this means saying what the record is (the chat or group, the participants, the date range of the messages) and how you got it onto paper or into a file: that you opened WhatsApp on your phone, navigated to the chat, and screenshotted it, or exported the chat using WhatsApp’s export function, and then printed it.

Limb (b): give the device particulars showing it was computer-produced. The certificate must give such particulars of any device involved in producing the record as are appropriate to show it was produced by a computer.¹⁴ The Act’s definition of “computer” is functional, covering any device that receives, stores and processes data, which on its terms covers a smartphone.¹⁵ So you describe the phone: make and model, the phone number and WhatsApp account it is registered to, and that the messages were stored and displayed by the WhatsApp application on that device.

Limb (c): deal with the section 106B(2) conditions. The certificate must deal with the matters in section 106B(2).¹⁶ Those conditions are the integrity conditions, and in plain terms you are certifying that:

• this is your regular phone, used to store or process this kind of information by someone with lawful control over it;
• information of this kind was fed into it in the ordinary course;
• the phone was operating properly, or any malfunction did not affect the record or its accuracy; and
• the screenshot reproduces, or is derived from, what was on the screen.¹⁷

In short, you are swearing that this is your everyday phone, you use WhatsApp on it normally, it was working, and the screenshot accurately reproduces what was on the screen.

Limb (d): sign it as a responsible person. The certificate must purport to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities.¹⁸ For a personal WhatsApp chat, the responsible person is ordinarily the owner and user of the phone. The Act adds that it is enough for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge of the person signing.¹⁹

What form does the certificate take?

Here is the nuance that is missing everywhere else. The Evidence Act does not prescribe a format for the certificate. The Court of Appeal has held that the Act does not provide the format the certificate should take, and that the certificate can take any form, including averments in the affidavit of the recorder.²⁰ In practice this is liberating: you do not need a special prescribed form. You can put the four limbs above into a stand-alone certificate, or you can plead them as paragraphs in the supporting affidavit through which you produce the screenshots. The Employment and Labour Relations Court has applied exactly this, holding that the certificate “can therefore take any form, including averments in the affidavit of the recorder,” and declining to strike out a claimant’s documents where a certificate of electronic evidence had been filed.²¹

A flexible form is not a soft standard. In the County Assembly of Kisumu case itself, even though the certificate could have been an affidavit, the photojournalist’s affidavit did not contain the required certificate or meet the section 106B(2) threshold, so the electronic evidence was rejected.²² The form is flexible; the substance is not. If your affidavit does not actually cover the four limbs, calling it a certificate does not save it.

What a complying certificate looks like

To see the standard met rather than missed, look at a criminal case where the Court of Appeal found compliance. The certificate accompanying crime-scene prints stated the officer’s appointment under section 78 by Gazette Notice and confirmed that “both the printing and processing of the prints was done under my supervision, they are in safe custody and can be produced whenever required.” The court held there was compliance with section 106B with respect to the required certificate.²³ Notice the pattern: who produced the record, how, that it was supervised, and that it has been kept securely. That is the shape your WhatsApp certificate should take.

The Court of Appeal has also confirmed the four limbs apply beyond text messages, to photographs, which it treats as electronic records requiring the section 106B certificate. The court restated each limb (identity of the record and how it was produced, device particulars, the section 106B(2) matters including the period the record relates to, and the signature of a responsible person) and rejected the photographs because no such certificate was produced.²⁴ Photographs, WhatsApp screenshots, exported chats, voice notes: they are all electronic records, and the same certificate gates them all.

How to capture WhatsApp messages so they survive a challenge

The certificate is the legal formality. Authentication is the substance underneath it, and it starts the moment you take the screenshot, not when you walk into court. The section 78A(3) weight factors are your guide: reliability of how the evidence was generated and stored, reliability of how its integrity was maintained, and how the originator was identified.²⁵ Translate those into practice:

• Capture the whole conversation, not a slice. A cropped screenshot of one line invites the objection that the context changes the meaning. Show the surrounding messages so the exchange reads as it happened.
• Make the sender identifiable on the face of the capture. The contact name alone is weak, because you control it. Where you can, capture the sender’s full phone number (in WhatsApp, open the contact or group-participant details), so the message ties to a number rather than a label you set.
• Make the date and time visible. Timestamps go to when the message was sent and help establish the sequence. Capture them rather than cropping them out.
• Preserve the original device. Do not factory-reset, sell or wipe the phone the messages live on. The original device is what lets you, or a forensic examiner, prove the screenshot reproduces what was actually there. Lawful control of that device is one of the section 106B(2) conditions you will be certifying.
• Consider exporting the chat, not just screenshotting. WhatsApp’s built-in chat export produces a fuller record than a screen capture and is easier to describe in the certificate under limb (a).
• Where the stakes are high, get a forensic extraction. For serious disputes, a properly conducted extraction by a qualified examiner, who can then sign the certificate or give primary evidence, is far stronger than a litigant’s own screenshots. The Court of Appeal has accepted analysis done by the witness herself as primary expert evidence needing no certificate at all.²⁶

Think of chain of custody in Kenyan terms, not imported ones. You will see overseas material talk about hashing standards and international forensic protocols. Those can strengthen a forensic report, but the Kenyan test is the one the Act sets: the section 106B(2) integrity conditions and the section 78A(3) weight factors. Keep the original device, document how you captured the record, produce it through an affidavit that satisfies the four limbs, and you have met the standard the courts actually apply.

Deleted, forwarded, or edited messages: what changes

Three variations come up constantly, and each shifts what you have to prove.

• Deleted messages. If a message was deleted from your view, a screenshot is no longer available, and you are into recovery: a forensic extraction of the device, which then has to be produced by the examiner who did it. This is the scenario where the primary-expert-evidence route matters most, because the person who recovered the data can give it directly.²⁷
• Forwarded messages. A forward shows you what was sent to you, but not necessarily who originally authored it. Identifying the originator is one of the section 78A(3) weight factors, so a forwarded message proves less about authorship than a message sent to you directly, and you should expect that gap to be probed.²⁸
• Allegedly edited or fabricated screenshots. This is exactly the risk the certificate regime exists to address; the Court of Appeal said the conditions are there because manipulation is possible.²⁹ If the other side alleges your screenshot was doctored, the answer is the original device and, where needed, a forensic examiner who can show the record on the phone matches what you tendered. A litigant who has kept the device and can produce it is in a strong position; one who has only a JPEG is not.

WhatsApp evidence in practice: employment, defamation, and contract

The certificate rule is not an abstraction. It decides real cases across the work this firm does.

Defamation. The clearest WhatsApp authority is a defamation case, and it was lost for want of the certificate. A libel suit founded entirely on words posted in WhatsApp groups failed because the screenshots were not authenticated by a certificate of electronic evidence proving they came from the claimant’s phone and were sent by the defendant.³⁰ If your reputation has been damaged in a WhatsApp group, the strength of your claim turns substantially on whether you can authenticate the posts. If that is where you are, book a consultation and we will assess the claim and the evidence together.

Employment and the ELRC. WhatsApp is now routine evidence in workplace disputes, and the certificate point is being litigated there directly. In one Employment and Labour Relations Court matter, the applicant relied on the Kisumu defamation appeal for the proposition that WhatsApp messages submitted without a certificate are inadmissible; the court nonetheless declined to strike out the documents, because the claimant had filed a certificate.³¹ A separate ELRC matter recorded a challenge to WhatsApp screenshots and other app screenshots on the basis that any electronic record must be accompanied by a certificate.³² The lesson for both employers and employees is the same: if your case rests on a WhatsApp exchange, prepare the certificate before you file.

Contract and commercial disputes. Messages increasingly carry the deal: prices agreed, instructions given, terms confirmed. Whether those messages can be proved follows the same path. The contents have to come in through section 106B, which means the certificate, and the weight they carry is measured by the section 78A(3) factors. The discipline you apply to capturing and authenticating the chat is what turns a useful-looking screenshot into evidence a court will act on.

When the certificate is not required

It is worth being precise, because over-claiming undermines authority. The certificate is the rule for tendering computer output, that is, a printout or copy of an electronic record. It is not always required.

Where a witness analyses the device data herself and produces it as primary expert evidence, rather than handing up second-hand computer output, the Court of Appeal has held that no certificate was required under section 106B(4) in those circumstances.³³ The distinction is between proving the contents of a record through a copy (certificate territory) and a qualified witness giving direct evidence of what she found and analysed (primary evidence). For most litigants holding screenshots, you are in certificate territory. But it explains why a forensic examiner who personally extracted and analysed the data can be a stronger route than your own screenshots, and a cleaner one.

Frequently asked questions

Are WhatsApp screenshots admissible as evidence in Kenya?

Yes, in principle. Electronic messages and digital material are admissible, and a court will not refuse them merely because they are not in original form (Evidence Act, Cap. 80, s. 78A). But to get the contents of a WhatsApp chat in as a document, you go through section 106B, which requires a signed certificate of electronic evidence. A bare screenshot with no certificate usually fails: the High Court dismissed a defamation suit built on WhatsApp screenshots for exactly that reason (Ogembo v Yongo [2024] KEHC 15763 (KLR)).

Is a WhatsApp screenshot alone enough?

Usually not. The screenshot is a copy of an electronic record. Without the section 106B certificate proving it came from the right phone and was sent by the right person, the court can refuse to admit it. The Court of Appeal has called the certificate a mandatory requirement (County Assembly of Kisumu [2015] KECA 397 (KLR)).

What is a section 106B certificate and who signs it?

It is a certificate that (a) identifies the electronic record and describes how it was produced, (b) gives particulars of the device showing it was computer-produced, (c) deals with the integrity conditions in section 106B(2), and (d) is signed by a person in a responsible position in relation to the device or activity (Evidence Act, Cap. 80, s. 106B(4)). For a personal WhatsApp chat, that responsible person is ordinarily the owner and user of the phone. It is enough to state a matter to the best of the signer’s knowledge.

Does the certificate have to be a special court form?

No. The Court of Appeal has held the Act does not prescribe a format and that the certificate can take any form, including averments in the affidavit of the recorder (County Assembly of Kisumu [2015] KECA 397 (KLR)). You can produce a stand-alone certificate or plead the four limbs in your supporting affidavit. The form is flexible, but the substance must actually cover the four limbs, or it will be rejected.

What is the difference between section 78A and section 106B?

Section 78A says electronic evidence is admissible and lists the factors that determine its weight (reliability of generation and storage, integrity, and how the originator was identified). Section 106B is the gate for getting the contents of an electronic record in as a document, and it requires the certificate. In WhatsApp cases the courts apply section 106B and have dismissed claims for want of the certificate. Treat section 78A(3) as your checklist for making the evidence convincing and section 106B as the formality for getting it admitted.

How should I screenshot WhatsApp chats so they hold up in court?

Capture the whole conversation rather than a cropped line, make the sender’s full phone number visible where you can, keep the date and time stamps in the frame, and preserve the original phone (do not wipe or sell it). Consider using WhatsApp’s chat-export function for a fuller record. These map onto the section 78A(3) weight factors: reliable generation and storage, integrity, and identification of the originator.

Can the other side claim my screenshot was edited or fabricated?

Yes, and the certificate regime exists precisely because the law assumes electronic evidence can be manipulated (County Assembly of Kisumu [2015] KECA 397 (KLR)). Your answer is the preserved original device and, where the stakes justify it, a forensic examiner who can show the record on the phone matches what you tendered. A JPEG with nothing behind it is the weakest position.

Do photographs and voice notes need a certificate too?

Yes. The Court of Appeal has held that photographs are electronic records requiring the section 106B certificate (Mwagandi v Lewa [2025] KECA 1036 (KLR)). The same logic covers exported chats and voice notes: they are electronic records, and the certificate gates them all.

Is there ever a case where no certificate is needed?

Yes. Where a qualified witness analyses the device data herself and gives it as primary expert evidence, rather than tendering a copy, the Court of Appeal has held no certificate was required in the circumstances (Wanga & 4 others v Republic [2023] KECA 296 (KLR)). For an ordinary litigant holding screenshots, though, plan on the certificate.

Is it section 106B or section 65B?

Section 106B. Some material online cites “section 65B,” which is associated with the Indian Evidence Act, not Kenya’s. Kenya’s certificate provision is section 106B of the Evidence Act, Cap. 80, sitting with section 106A which routes proof of electronic records through it. Do not rely on Indian, Nigerian, or EU section numbers for a Kenyan court.

Get your WhatsApp evidence court-ready

WhatsApp messages win and lose cases in Kenya every week, and the difference is rarely the message. It is whether the screenshot was captured, preserved and certified the way the Evidence Act requires. A bare screenshot is a starting point, not evidence. The certificate, the original device, and a capture that identifies the sender and the timing are what make it stand up.

If you are building a defamation, employment, or commercial claim that turns on WhatsApp messages, or defending one, book a consultation and we will assess what you have, fix the gaps in capture and authentication, and prepare the certificate of electronic evidence so the messages survive a challenge rather than getting thrown out at the door.