ERICK KARIUKI vs. CERES TECH LIMITED T/A LEMON CASH
1. Introduction
The case is in respect to the complainant, Erick Kariuki against Ceres Tech Limited t/a Lemon Cash, on the contact made to him demanding payment of 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 contacted demanding payment of a loan he was not a party to. The complainant alleged that the respondent made over 200 calls in less than half an hour from multiple mobile phone numbers, which were frustrating and stressful and greatly affected his line of work.
3. Analysis of Evidence
Complainant’s Position
- Received over 200 calls in less than half an hour on 21st November 2023
- Provided screenshots of his call logs as proof
- Stated the calls were frustrating and stressful and forced him to switch off his phone
Respondent’s Defense
- Conducted an internal review and discovered the Complainant’s information was not present in its data log
- Could not confirm whether the alleged calls originated from its Company
- Welcomed investigations into its data log by the ODPC
- Later stated it does not contact third parties or emergency contacts
- Denied ODPC access to the backend of its database during the site visit
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 denying access to the backend of its database.
- 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 denying ODPC access to systems during investigations constitutes obstruction under Section 61
- Directors can be recommended for prosecution for obstruction
Digital Lender Record-Keeping and Accountability
- Digital lenders must maintain accurate records of all communications with customers and third parties
- Failure to maintain proper records undermines accountability and may result in prosecution for obstruction
Broader Impact: This determination addresses a significant challenge in Kenya’s digital lending ecosystem, where individuals are harassed by unknown numbers for loans they never took. It establishes that complainants bear the burden of proving the source of such contacts, while digital lenders who obstruct investigations risk prosecution.