DERRICK KIAMBA VERSUS CERES TECH LIMITED T/A ROCKETPESA
1. Introduction
The dispute in this matter stems from Derrick Kiamba’s complaint against Ceres Tech Limited t/a Rocketpesa on the constant sending of unsolicited promotional messages and calls without obtaining consent. This action is in breach of the Data Protection Act, 2019.
Table of Contents
2. Nature of Complaint
The complainant, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, alleged that the Respondent’s agents have been calling and messaging him incessantly trying to promote their loan products. Despite informing the Respondent he is not interested, the messages continued and migrated to WhatsApp. He has had to block many contacts but they continue to contact him.
3. Analysis of Evidence
Complainant’s Position
- Received unsolicited promotional messages from mobile numbers 0799****98, 0794****88, 0703****09 and 0741****37
- Informed the Respondent he is not interested and threatened to report them
- Has had to block many contacts but they migrated to WhatsApp texting
- He had no loan facility with the Respondent
Respondent’s Defense
- Denied the allegations, stating its marketing team adheres to protocols to prevent unsolicited messages
- Marketing messages are only sent to individuals who sign up and sign a marketing consent form
- All marketing messages include an opt-out option by SMSing STOP to 0795671130
- Claimed the messages were from numbers not linked to the Respondent and were sent by malicious individuals
- Provided a sample marketing message and a copy of the marketing consent form as proof
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.
- A recommendation for prosecution is made against the Director(s) of the Respondent’s Company for obstruction.
Orders:
- The complaint is hereby dismissed.
- A recommendation for prosecution is made against the Director(s) of the Respondent’s Company for obstruction of the Data Commissioner.
- 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
- Directors can be recommended for prosecution for obstruction
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
Broader Impact: This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for complainants and respondents alike: allegations without evidence will fail, while obstruction of regulatory investigations carries serious consequences. Digital lenders must maintain clear records of their marketing communications and cooperate fully with oversight bodies.