NJERI JOMO VERSUS AZURA CREDIT LIMITED
1. Introduction
The complaint before this Office concerns Njeri Jomo’s grievance against Azura Credit Limited on the receipt of incessant calls regarding a loan she was not a party to, and for which her mobile number was listed as a reference without her consent. This action is incompatible with the Data Protection Act, 2019.
Table of Contents
2. Nature of Complaint
The complainant was contacted regarding a loan she was unaware of, with her mobile number listed as a reference without her consent. She alleged that she received over 2,000 calls, severely impacting her ability to use her phone, and despite repeated requests for the calls to cease, she was met with insults and threats.
3. Analysis of Evidence
Complainant’s Position
- Has been receiving incessant calls from a lady claiming to represent the Respondent from number 07******54
- The caller alleges that a member of the Complainant’s staff borrowed money and provided her number as a reference
- Despite repeated requests for cessation, she was met with insults and threats
- Has received over 2,000 calls, severely impacting her ability to use her phone
- Provided screenshots of her call logs as proof
Respondent’s Defense
- Operates its business in line with the law and industry best practices
- Does not intentionally or systematically call persons with no loans
- Only contacts clients who are in default of their loan repayment
- Conducted an investigation with Safaricom and confirmed the number belongs to P**** K****** who is not associated with it
- Requested the ODPC to conduct further investigations
4. Issues for Determination
- Whether the mobile phone number that contacted the Complainant belongs 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 number 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
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
Digital Lender Accountability
- Reinforces the obligation of digital lenders to obtain direct consent from individuals listed as referees
- Harassing individuals through excessive calls constitutes a violation of data protection rights
Broader Impact: This ruling offers a critical lesson for complainants and digital lenders alike. For complainants, allegations must be substantiated with concrete evidence. For lenders, the path to regulatory accountability is clear: cooperation with investigations is non-negotiable, and obstruction carries consequences that extend beyond compensation to personal liability for directors.