Cases
Anthony Mwenda v Ceres Tech Limited T/A Rocketpesa
Case summary
The complainant received a message stating that they had gotten a loan from the respondent that came with screenshot evidence. The complainant insisted that he never acquired a loan from the respondent. The respondent provided the phone number and ID number used. The complainant stated that it was a case of fraud given the number used was not his but the identification number was and even reported it to the police station asserting that the respondent provided false misleading information. The respondent still threatened him to pay the loan by calling from a different number.
Upon a preliminary review, the respondent stated that neither the number or ID was in their database and stated that their records do not show any loan associated with the complainant's name.
Issues for determination
- Whether there was a violation of the complainants rights under the Act?
- Whether the respondent fulfilled its obligation under the Act?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any remedies under the Act and the attendant regulations?
Determination
The respondent violated the right to inform the complainant of the use of their data, the right to object to the processing of the data and for unlawfully handling this data. Additionally, a recommendation of prosecution was made to the director of the respondents company for obstruction of the commissioner while exercising their power as well as giving false material pursuant to Section 61(a) and (d) of the Data Protection Act. Also, an enforcement notice was issued to the respondent and a fine of Ksh 700,000 to be paid to the complainant.The parties were informed of the right to appeal within 30 days.
Analysis
The complainant stated that they had been receiving whatsapp messages and calls about a loan that they are not a party to. Additionally, they had the right to be informed under Section 26(a) and the Respondent ought to have informed the complainant of the use of the personal data collected for the purpose of the loan disbursement.The respondent failed to consider the complainant’s right to object to the processing of their personal data, as the complainant had objected through WhatsApp. Consequently, the respondent violated the complainant’s rights to be informed and to object to the processing of their personal data.
Under Section 25 of the Data Protection Act, the respondent has a right to process the data according to the right to privacy and in a manner that is lawful, fair and transparent. In this case the respondent failed to ensure that the details of the National ID were accurate and reliable.
Section 28(2) sets out instances that data can be indirectly collected, however the conditions set therein must be met given he obtained this information from a third party and as such, the failure to collect the data directly exposed him to financial fraud associated with a loan he did not apply for. Additionally, the respondent failed to adhere to lawful processing of data provided for under Section 30 of the Act.
Pursuant to regulation 14(2) and 14(3) of the enforcement regulations provides that a determination will provide the remedy. The complainant in their prayers stated that they wanted 3,00,000ksh as compensation of which a data subject can be accorded pursuant to Section 65 if the act.The ODPC took all facts and issues into consideration and declines the three million compensation and instead ordered that the respondent pay 700,000ksh and a recommendation for prosecution made to the director of the respondents of the respondents com