SIGEI CALEB VERSUS MULLA PRIDE LIMITED
1. Introduction
The case is in respect to the complainant, Sigei Caleb against Mulla Pride Limited, on the constant harassment and threats through his phone regarding a loan that he was not a party to. This action is prohibited under the Data Protection Act, 2019.
Table of Contents
2. Nature of Complaint
The complainant was contacted regarding a loan he was not a party to. He alleged that the Respondent constantly harassed and threatened him using mobile numbers and a hidden “No caller ID” number, despite never giving his contacts to them. The harassment caused him psychological distress and affected his daily duties.
3. Analysis of Evidence
Complainant’s Position
- Received constant harassment and threats on 1st March 2024
- Provided screenshots of his call log as proof
- Stated the harassment caused him psychological torture, stress, and embarrassment
Respondent’s Defense
- Confirmed the Complainant does not have a loan with its company
- Stated his number was supplied by its customer as a secondary contact when her primary number was unavailable
- Admitted he had not given his consent to use his number
- Claimed the agent involved has been disciplined
- Claimed they apologized to the Complainant and prayed for the complaint to be withdrawn
- Stated it is finalizing shutting down operations
4. Issues for Determination
- Whether there was a violation of the Complainant’s rights under the Act
- Whether the Respondent had obligations to fulfil under the Act
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to any remedies under the Act and the attendant Regulations
5. Final Determination
The Data Commissioner found:
- The Respondent collected and used the Complainant’s personal data without informing him.
- The Respondent failed to obtain consent from the Complainant before using his number.
- The Respondent obstructed the ODPC investigation.
- The Respondent is liable for violation of the Complainant’s rights under the Act.
Orders:
- Compensation of Ksh 250,000 to the Complainant.
- An Enforcement Notice is issued against the Respondent.
- 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
Right to be Informed and Consent
- Establishes that data controllers must inform data subjects of the collection and use of their personal data
- Collecting personal data from third parties without notifying the data subject constitutes a violation
Obstruction of the Data Commissioner
- Reinforces that deliberately obstructing ODPC investigations constitutes a serious offence
- Directors can be recommended for prosecution for obstruction
Broader Impact: Across Africa, data controllers must directly inform data subjects when collecting their personal data from third parties. Obstructing data protection investigations will attract prosecution, setting a critical deterrent for non-compliant lenders.