DENIS MWANGI (ALIAS DENNIS MINT) vs. MULLA PRIDE LIMITED
1. Introduction
The case is in respect to the complainant, Denis Mwangi alias Dennis Mint against Mulla Pride Limited, on the contact made to him regarding a loan that he was not a party to. This action contravenes the Data Protection Act, 2019.
Table of Contents
2. Nature of Complaint
The complainant was listed as an emergency contact for someone named W**** S**** without his knowledge. The complainant alleged that RhinoCash and Mula Loan Apps sent him messages that he was an emergency contact, and that the Respondent used multiple mobile phone numbers to call and abuse him.
3. Analysis of Evidence
Complainant’s Position
- Provided screenshots of messages from RhinoCash and Mula Loan Apps
- Stated that his contact was being used illegally to shame people
- Received calls from multiple numbers as listed in the complaint
Respondent’s Defense
- Denied being the owner of RhinoCash and/or Mula Loan Apps
- Stated that the named person W**** S**** of phone number 0798****95 is not their customer
- Conducted investigations and claimed the numbers could belong to White Path Limited, but provided no evidence
- Indicated they are in the process of shutting down operations
- Obstructed the ODPC site visit by closing offices on the scheduled day
4. Issues for Determination
- Whether the mobile phone numbers that contacted the Complainant belong to the Respondent
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to any remedies under the Act and the attendant Regulations
5. Final Determination
The Data Commissioner found:
- The Complainant failed to adduce sufficient evidence linking the mobile numbers to the Respondent.
- The Respondent obstructed the ODPC investigation by closing its offices on the scheduled site visit day.
- A recommendation for prosecution is made against the Director(s) of the Respondent’s Company for obstruction under Section 61 of the Act.
Orders:
- The complaint is hereby dismissed.
- A recommendation for prosecution is made against the Director(s) of the Respondent’s Company for obstruction under Section 61 of the Act.
- Right of appeal to the High Court within 30 days.
6. Significance and Impact
Obstruction of the Data Commissioner
- Reinforces that deliberately obstructing ODPC investigations constitutes a serious offence under Section 61
- Directors can be recommended for prosecution for obstruction
Repeat Offender Consequences
- Demonstrates that repeated obstruction of investigations attracts stricter enforcement, including prosecution
- Non-cooperation with ODPC investigations will not be tolerated
Broader Impact: This determination addresses a growing challenge across Africa’s digital lending sector, where individuals are harassed by unknown numbers for loans they never took. It establishes that deliberate obstruction of data protection investigations will result in prosecution, setting a critical deterrent for rogue digital lenders across the continent.