| Authority: | ODPC - Kenya |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: | Kenya |
| Relevant law: | Article 31 (c) and (d) of the Constitution of Kenya.The Data Protection Act, 2019, particularly Sections 8, 25, 30, 32, 33, and 37. Regulation 14 of the Data Protection (Complaints Handling Procedure and Enforcement) Regulations, 2021. Regulation 14 of the General Regulations. |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Violation |
| Started: | 15 April 2024 |
| Decided: | 14 July 2024 |
| Published: | Yes |
| Fine: | KES.700,000 |
| Parties: | Moses Atela Otiende (Legal Guardian of AEA Minor) vs. DMI Eductaion Services Ltd (T/A St. Joseph International Science School) |
| Case No.: | 577 of 2024 |
| Appeal: | N/A |
| Original Source: | ODPC |
| Original contributor: | MZIZI Africa |
This case involved a complaint filed by the guardian of a minor against DMI Education Services Ltd. The respondent had used the minor’s image on a billboard advertisement for the school without the guardian's consent. The ODPC determined that using the minor's image for commercial purposes without consent violated Sections 30 (1) (a), 32 (1) and 33 of the Data Protection Act, 2019. The respondent was ordered to pay KES 700,000 in compensation.
The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC) received a complaint on 15 April 2024.
Moses Atela Otiende, the legal guardian of a minor, alleged that DMI Education Services Ltd (operating as St. Joseph International Science School) used the minor's images for advertisement on a mini billboard without the complainant's consent.
The complainant stated that the respondent took the minor's photograph around December 2022 to enhance outreach and expand the student population.
The complainant became aware of the billboard in March 2024 when the minor, while using public transport, pointed out his image on the billboard.
In response to the complaint, the respondent stated that Mr. Otiende was the respondent’s teacher at the time the photograph was allegedly taken, and that his employment was terminated due to poor performance.
The respondent stated that Mr. Otiende omitted to indicate in his complaint that he was in charge of organizing the event that led to his son’s picture being taken.
The respondent further stated that Mr. Otiende had on several occasions offered his son to participate in various school activities without the respondent's consent.
The ODPC found that the respondent took the minor's picture while introducing new school uniforms.
The respondent then placed the minor's picture on a banner or mini-board to showcase and advertise the new uniforms to the school population.
The ODPC also found that the respondent failed to obtain express consent from the complainant to process the minor's personal data for commercial purposes.
Legal Provisions Reviewed