| Authority: | ODPC - Kenya |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: | Kenya |
| Relevant law: | Section 25(4), 26 of the Data Protection Act, 2019; Article 31 of the Constitution of Kenya |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | No Violation |
| Started: | 24 & 25 January 2024 |
| Decided: | 20 April 2024 |
| Published: | Yes |
| Fine: | N/A |
| Parties: | Lawrence Makhuli & Anor vs. Ceres Tech Ltd t/a Chapaa Loan |
| Case No.: | 148 & 160 of of 2024 |
| Appeal: | N/A |
| Original Source: | ODPC |
| Original contributor: | MZIZI Africa |
A complaint was filed against Ceres Tech Limited ("the Respondent"), accusing them of contacting and harassing the Complainants about loans they hadn't taken. However, the complaint was dismissed because there was no evidence to prove who owned the phone lines that made the offending calls.
The complaint was lodged against Ceres Tech Limited, also known as Chapaa Loan, by the Complainants, Abubakar Hussein and Vivian Ashleigh
The Respondent is a digital credit provider that lends money to its customers through its mobile application.
The Complainants alleged that they have been receiving calls from the Respondent claiming that an unknown person. They provided screenshots of the messages and call logs backed by Truecaller identification assigned to the numbers as proof of origin or ownership by the Respondent, of the offending phone numbers.
The Respondent denied that the calls made to the Complainants was by its agents.
Upon investigation, the ODPC found that the Respondent’s database did not contain the phone numbers of the person that made the offending calls.
It was therefore not proven that the Respondent and/or its agents were responsible for the offending calls/communication to the Complainants.
The ODPC held that:
The full text of the ruling is available below.