A nine-year legal battle over an alleged Sh109 million SportPesa jackpot has taken a dramatic turn, with the dispute shifting from whether the winnings should be paid to whether the claimant is who he says he is.
SportPesa is seeking permission to introduce fresh evidence challenging the identity of the man suing as John Friendrich and questioning his legal standing to pursue the jackpot claim.
The proposed evidence includes correspondence with the Registrar of Births and Deaths and the Civil Registration Services, an allegedly invalid birth certificate marked “NOT AUTHENTIC”, a Gazette Notice, an Occurrence Book (OB) extract and correspondence with the Registrar of Persons concerning the claimant’s identity documents.
“The alleged plaintiff is not who he claims he is and the person before this court purporting to be ‘John Friendrich’ is not,” SportPesa director Robert Macharia says in court filings, alleging forgery.
According to Mr Macharia, official records indicate that the birth certificate relied upon by the plaintiff belongs to a person identified as John Muironge Muriuki, not John Friendrich. The claimant strongly disputes the allegation.
The case, which began as a claim for unpaid betting winnings, now centres on whether the man who says he placed the winning bet is the same person who filed the suit in 2017.
A recent High Court ruling has allowed both parties to litigate those competing claims before the court determines who, if anyone, is entitled to the disputed jackpot.
The case has become one of Kenya’s longest-running betting disputes, surviving the collapse of the original SportPesa business, changes in ownership of the betting brand and years of court proceedings.
Mr Friendrich sued Pevans East Africa Ltd, then operating the SportPesa betting platform, together with Bradley Ltd, trading as Pambazuka National Lottery, claiming he won a Sh109,234,886 jackpot after placing a bet in July 2017.
Pevans later ceased operations after its betting licence was not renewed in 2019 and subsequently assigned the SportPesa trademark to SportPesa Global Holdings Ltd in the United Kingdom. Despite those corporate changes, the litigation has continued before the Commercial Division of the High Court in Nairobi.
SportPesa says its latest application concerns evidence discovered long after the trial had begun rather than the betting claim itself.
The company is seeking leave to file a further witness statement and additional documents, arguing that the material directly challenges Mr Friendrich’s identity and capacity to maintain the suit.
In affidavits sworn by Mr Macharia, SportPesa says inquiries with the Civil Registration Service were prompted after the plaintiff relied on a birth certificate during the proceedings. Those inquiries, it says, raised questions about whether the birth certificate corresponded with the identity under which the lawsuit was filed.
The company argues the evidence points to inconsistencies between the names “John Friendrich” and “John Muironge Muriuki”. It also contends that the plaintiff has not produced a deed poll or Gazette Notice demonstrating a lawful change of name before instituting the proceedings.
Mr Macharia further alleges inconsistencies regarding the identity of the plaintiff’s father, saying different documents refer to Peter Muriuki Mwongera, Peter Muriuki M’rimbere and Peter Friendrich.
SportPesa maintains that those discrepancies justify reopening the evidentiary record before judgment is delivered. The company also rejects the plaintiff’s contention that the latest application is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, arguing that an earlier application sought to recall the plaintiff for further cross-examination, while the present one seeks admission of fresh documentary evidence.
Mr Friendrich rejects every aspect of SportPesa’s case, describing the latest application as “fictitious and an abuse of the Court process” intended to delay the conclusion of litigation that has lasted nearly a decade.
He says his identity was extensively examined during the trial through cross-examination and documentary evidence and argues the company is attempting to reopen issues already settled.
“At the hearing hereof I was cross-examined on my identity, and I also produced proof of my identity and the same was not a fact in issue, and this demonstrates that the timing of the application is an afterthought to delay the suit from concluding,” he says.
The plaintiff maintains that he lawfully registered his SportPesa betting account using a Safaricom mobile number registered in his name and transacted on the platform for years before the jackpot dispute arose.
According to his affidavit, SportPesa accepted his deposits, validated his bets and processed transactions on the account without questioning his identity. He argues that the company cannot now deny recognising him only after he claimed the jackpot.
Mr Friendrich also contends that SportPesa has failed to show the evidence could not have been obtained earlier through reasonable diligence and is instead attempting to strengthen its case after the close of the trial.
However, Justice Peter Mulwa allowed the application, ruling that it was distinct from the earlier one because it sought admission of additional documentary evidence rather than the recall of the plaintiff for further cross-examination.
In allowing the application, Justice Mulwa emphasised that the court was not determining whether SportPesa’s allegations were true: “If the allegations are ultimately established, they would have a significant bearing on the Court’s determination of the dispute.”
The matter will be mentioned on September 21, 2026.
The court held that excluding evidence relating to the claimant’s identity could prevent it from determining the dispute on a complete factual record.
