Contents

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

Summary

The High Court held that CCTV cameras which were positioned to record occurrences in the Petitioner’s compound violated her right to privacy.

Facts

Kennedy Orangi Ondieki, the Petitioner, residing at house No. 12, Kilimani, Nairobi, initiated the petition against his neighbour, Hellen Maeda, the Respondent, who resides at house No. 13.

The Petitioner's case was based on the following allegations:

• The dispute began around March 2, 2022, when the Respondent installed CCTV cameras on her premises without issuing him notice.
• He asserted that these cameras were positioned in a manner that allowed them to spy, monitor, and record images of his property.
• He attempted to resolve the issue amicably by requesting the cameras be repositioned but was met with hostility.
• The Respondent's actions infringed upon his family's right to privacy within their property.
• He claimed that the continuous breach, without justification, amounted to harassment of his family, as their private affairs were being recorded.
• He further deposed that after he erected a barricade to block the camera's view, the Respondent uninstalled the cameras and reinstalled them above the barricade, continuing to monitor his compound.
• The Petitioner contended that the Respondent, as a data controller under the Data Protection Act, was processing his personal data (recordings and monitoring) without his consent and a justifiable cause, thus denying him control over his personal information.

The Petitioner sought several orders from the court, including:

• A declaratory order that the Respondent's actions violated his rights under Article 31 of the Constitution.