Cases
Victor Akidiva vs The Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited
Case Summary
The office of the data protection commissioner (ODPC) received a complaint from Victor Akidiva against the co-operative bank of kenya limited. The complainant alleged that his credit reference bureau (CRB) report was disclosed to a third party, Pauline Kanini Muvya, without his consent or a court order. The respondent failed to establish how Pauline obtained the report. The ODPC investigated the complaint and issued a determination based on the findings.
Issues for Determination
- Whether there was a violation of the complainant's rights under the data protection act.
- Whether the respondent fulfilled its obligations under the data protection act.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any remedies under the act and the attendant regulations.
Determination
The office of the data protection commissioner (ODPC) determined that the Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited is liable for violating Victor Akidiva's personal data rights by unlawfully sharing his credit reference bureau (crb) report with a third party without his consent. Consequently, the ODPC will issue an enforcement notice against the respondent. Additionally, the ODPC recommended the prosecution of Pauline Kanini Muvya under section 57(3) of the data protection act for failing to comply with the odpc's summons. Both parties have the right to appeal this determination to the high court of Kenya within 30 days.
Analysis
On whether there was a violation of complainant's rights under the act
The complainant has rights under section 26 of the data protection act, including the right to be informed of the use to which his personal data is put. The respondent collected the complainant's personal data as part of a loan agreement. However, sharing this data with Pauline without the complainant's consent violated his privacy rights. The respondent could not establish how Pauline obtained the crb report, indicating a failure to process the complainant's data in accordance with the act and its regulations. Both the respondent and Pauline violated the complainant's rights.
On whether the respondent fulfilled its obligations under the act
The respondent, as a data controller and processor, has obligations under section 25 of the act to adhere to data protection principles. the respondent failed to ensure that the complainant's data was processed lawfully and transparently. Despite having the right to generate crb reports for internal purposes, the respondent could not demonstrate a lawful basis for sharing the complainant's data with pauline. In addition, the respondent did not fulfill its obligation under section 32 of the act to prove that the complainant consented to the data processing. The respondent also failed to comply with section 41 of the act, which mandates data protection by design and by default.
On whether the complainant is entitled to any remedies under the act and the attendant regulations
The complainant sought various reliefs, including prosecution of the person who misused his data and improvements in the respondent's data protection processes. given the violations found, the ODPC decided to issue an enforcement notice against the respondent. Furthermore, Pauline's refusal to comply with the odpc's summons makes her criminally liable under section 57 of the act. Therefore, the ODPC recommended her prosecution.