LAWRENCE MAKHULI & VIVIAN ASHLEIGH vs. CERES TECH LIMITED T/A ROCKETPESA
1. Introduction
The case is in respect to the complainants, Lawrence Makhuli and Vivian Ashleigh against Ceres Tech Limited t/a Rocketpesa, on the contact made to them regarding loans they were unaware of and had not consented to be enlisted as referees or emergency contact persons. This action is against the Data Protection Act, 2019 provisions.
Table of Contents
2. Nature of Complaint
The complainants were contacted regarding loans they were unaware of, were listed as referees or emergency contacts without their consent, and received threatening messages and calls from the respondent.
3. Analysis of Evidence
Complainants’ Position
- 1st Complainant: Alleged he was contacted regarding a loan he never took; produced a screenshot of a WhatsApp message as proof; stated he received too many calls to the point he could not use his phone
- 2nd Complainant: Alleged she has been receiving threatening messages and calls; provided screenshots of her call log and messages as proof
Respondent’s Defense
- Claimed its agent, who was also a former agent of Zillions Credit Limited, knew the Complainants since they work at Zillions Credit Limited
- Denied that the mobile numbers used to contact the Complainants belonged to it or its agents
- Produced a screenshot from Truecaller indicating the line belonged to “Paul Zashloan Sparf”
- Stated that there are persons masquerading as clients to maliciously solicit fines against the company
4. Issues for Determination
- Whether the mobile phone numbers that contacted the Complainants belong to the Respondent
- Whether the Complainants are entitled to any remedies under the Act and the attendant Regulations
5. Final Determination
The Data Commissioner found:
- The mobile phone numbers that contacted the Complainants did not belong to the Respondent.
- The Complainants failed to adduce sufficient evidence linking the alleged activity to the Respondent.
- The complaint against the Respondent is hereby dismissed.
Orders:
- No compensation awarded as the complaint was dismissed.
- Right of appeal to the High Court within 30 days.
6. Significance and Impact
Burden of Proof on Complainants
- Establishes that the burden of proving that a mobile number belongs to a respondent lies with the complainant
- Complainants must adduce sufficient evidence to link the alleged activity to the respondent
Data Controller Systems and Record-Keeping
- Reinforces the importance of maintaining accurate records of all mobile numbers and communications
- Data controllers who maintain proper records can protect themselves from false claims
Broader Impact: This determination highlights a significant challenge in Kenya’s digital lending ecosystem, where individuals are increasingly harassed by unknown numbers for loans they never took. It establishes that complainants bear the burden of proving the source of such contacts, while data controllers must maintain accurate records and ensure emergency contacts are properly notified.