Case Law library

Lucy Kinyanjui vs Easy Coach Limited/ODPC

Summary

On April 11th 2023, Lucy Kinyanju the Complainant, lodged a complaint with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner claiming that Easy Coach Limited, the Respondent, had shared her personal details without her consent, leading to harassment by a third party who accused her of stealing his luggage. Easy Coach Limited collects and processes personal data of passengers for travel services and stores the information on their servers. 

The Respondent argued that they collect and process personal data of passengers for the purpose of providing travel services. They stated that the Complainant's information was collected during the booking process, including details like name, address, phone number, ID document, date of birth, email address, and payment information. The Respondent emphasised that all collected information is stored securely on their servers. They also mentioned that they prepare passenger manifests for verification and financial management, with access limited to specific purposes such as legal and financial compliance. The Respondent further highlighted that they have put in place mitigation measures to address the issues raised in the complaint, including privacy policies, complaints handling procedures, staff training, and redacting passenger details on manifests to limit access. The Respondent stated further that they prepare passengers' manifests for verification and financial management, with access limited to specific purposes. 

Issues for determination

The issues for determination in this case were:-, 

• Whether the Respondent fulfilled its duty to notify the Complainant of the use of her contact details as per Section 29 of the Data Protection Act.
• Whether there was any infringement of the Complainant’s rights as a data subject as provided for in the Data Protection Act.
• Whether the Complainant is entitled to any remedies under the Data Protection Act .

Determination

The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner made the following determinations based on their analysis of the complaint, responses from the Respondent, and their investigations:

1. The Respondent demonstrated compliance with collecting, storing, and processing personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act.
2. The Respondent fulfilled the duty to notify data subjects as required by the Act.
3. The Data Commissioner directed the Respondent to provide proof of staff training within seven days of receiving the determination.
4. In case of non-compliance with the training requirement, an Enforcement Notice would be issued.

Additionally, the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner noted that the Respondent had implemented organisational steps and safeguards to prevent unauthorised sharing of passenger data without consent, as requested by the Complainant.

Analysis

The case demonstrates ways in which data protection has become more widely recognized and understood by the public in Kenya. It further demonstrates an awareness of rights of a data subject as prescribed under section 26 of the Data Protection Act, and the duties of data controllers and processors in respect to data collection and compliance with the provisions of the Act. Key observations from the case include:- 

1. Unauthorised Access and Harassment: The complaint raised by the passenger highlights the potential consequences of unauthorised access to personal data. In this case, the Complainant experienced harassment due to her personal details being accessed without consent. Section 43 of the DPA underscores the importance of robust data protection measures to prevent such incidents and protect individuals' privacy rights.
2. Data Collection and Processing: The Respondent company's collection and processing of passenger data for travel services demonstrate the necessity of data handling in service provision. However, the case emphasises the need for transparency in informing individuals about the collection of their data and the purposes for which it will be used, as per data protection regulations. This is in line with section 29 of the Data Protection Act highlighting the duty to the data controller and processor to inform the data subject prior to collection of data. Additionally, section 30 (b) of the DPA highlights the necessity for processing personal data which is further grounded by section 30(b)i.
3. Organisational Safeguards: The determination notes that the Respondent had implemented organisational safeguards to prevent similar incidents in the future. This demonstrated compliance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act as prescribed under section 41 requiring necessary technical and organisational safeguards to be put in place in the processing of personal data which includes privacy by design and default. Additionally, section 42 gives prerequisites for determining what organisational measures must be put in place where the processing involves the transmission of data over an information and communication network.
4. Compliance and Enforcement: The Data Protection Commissioner's determination focused on assessing the respondent's compliance with data protection laws, including the duty to notify data subjects and the requirement for staff training. The issuance of an Enforcement Notice in case of non-compliance underscores the importance of enforcement mechanisms to ensure adherence to data protection regulations.

This case serves as a practical example of the implications of data protection breaches and the importance of proactive measures to safeguard personal information. It underscores the need for organisations to prioritise data protection, transparency in data handling practices, and continuous staff training to uphold individuals' privacy rights and comply with data protection regulations.