Cases
Wesley Okello vs Risine Credit Limited
Case Summary
Wesley Okello (Complainant) complained that Risine Credit Limited (Respondent), through their Ipesa Product, contacted him about a loan taken by a third party, on which the Complainant was the guarantor. This was done without his knowledge or consent. The Complainant showed evidence via a text message of the same, while the Respondent did not respond.
Issues For Determination
1. Whether there was a violation of Complainant's right under Section 26 of the Data Protection Act (the Act), especially the right to be informed of his data being used;
2. Whether the Respondent had obligations such as under Section 25, 28, and 29 of the Act to, inter alia, respect the right to privacy of the subject; to collect data directly from the subject, and to notify the subject respectively.
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to any remedies under the Act and the attendant Regulations.
Determination
By failing to inform the complainant that he was listed as a guarantor, the respondent violated the right to be informed under Section 26.
The Respondent had various obligations under the Act: Section 25, to, inter alia, ensure that data is processed in accordance with his right to privacy and processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the Complainant; Section 28 to collect data directly from the Subject; and Section 29, the obligation to notify the subject on, inter alia, rights specified under Section 26 and the fact that personal data was being collected.
The Complainant was entitled to an Enforcement Notice under Section 58 of the Act.
Analysis
The case highlights significant breaches in data protection by the respondent, who failed to inform the complainant of his listing as a guarantor for a loan without his consent, violating Section 26 of the Data Protection Act. This neglect of the complainant's right to be informed and the oversight in disregarding the obligation to obtain consent (as mandated by Sections 30 and 32) proved to be consequential. The company's non-response to the notification of complaint raises concerns about its accountability and engagement with regulatory authorities. The issuance of an Enforcement Notice under Section 58 emphasises the importance of complying with data protection laws and maintaining trust with consumers through transparency and proper data handling.