Contents

1. Summary
   1. Facts
   2. Holding
2. Comment
3. Further resources
4. The Decision

Summary

The ODPC found that there was no evidence to prove that the phone numbers belonged to the Respondent Mulla Pride Limited, a digital lender. The ODPC also found that the Respondent's obstruction of the investigation constitutes a violation of Section 61 of the Act.

Facts

Denis Mwangi alias Dennis Mint (the “Complainant “) lodged a complaint against Mulla Pride Limited about being contacted by the Respondent concerning a loan that the Complainant was not a party to.

The Complainant claimed to receive messages and calls from RhinoCash and Mula Loan App, which allegedly used his contact information illegally. The Complainant provided evidence in the form of screenshots of the messages received.

Mulla Pride Limited denied ownership of RhinoCash and Mula Loan App. The Respondent claimed the phone numbers in question did not belong to them but might belong to White Path Limited. The Respondent did not provide concrete evidence to support this claim and requested further investigations.

A site visit was scheduled but the respondent obstructed it by closing their offices on the planned day, which amounts to an offense under Section 61 of the Act.- This was noted as a repeated behavior, similar to an earlier complaint (ODPC Complaint No. 135 of 2024).

The ODPC summarised the issues for Determination as under:

• Whether the phone numbers that contacted the Complainant belonged to the Respondent.
• Whether the Complainant is entitled to any remedies under the Act and Regulations.

The ODPC found that there was no evidence to prove that the phone numbers belonged to the respondent. The ODPC also found that the Respondent's obstruction of the investigation constitutes a violation of Section 61 of the Act.

Holding

The ODPC held that:

• The complaint is dismissed due to lack of evidence against the respondent.