Data Commissioner Immaculate Kassait has also recommended the prosecution of Zuku’s directors for obstructing her office during the probe for the complaint.
Wananchi Group Limited, trading in Kenya as Zuku, has been ordered to pay an ex-customer Sh500,000 for ignoring his requests to stop sending him promotional messages because he was no longer its client.
In the determination, Data Commissioner Immaculate Kassait has also recommended the prosecution of Zuku’s directors for obstructing her office during the probe for the complaint.
In the case, the complainant identified as Yasin Abukar submitted on November 18, 2024, that Zuku had failed to erase his personal data despite his multiple requests, adding that he had stopped being a client of the firm years earlier.
Promotional messages
The Data Commissioner pointed out that Mr Abukar further complained that the Internet Service Provider (ISP) had continued to send him promotional messages despite his verbal, phone, and email requests for the firm to delete his personal information from its systems and databases.
The complainant also said he had attempted to escalate the issue via email, but the address provided on Zuku’s website was invalid while his attempts to address the matter directly with the company ‘multiple times’ bore no fruit.
The data protection watchdog said that Zuku in its response said that upon receiving the complaint, it conducted a comprehensive review of its records and systems and found out that it did not receive any data deletion requests from an individual bearing Abukar’s name through its communications channel.
Denied access
The Office of the Data Protection Officer (ODPC) then took up the matter for probe, conducting an on-site visit to Zuku premises on Tuesday last week. Ms Kassait says her officers were denied access to the digital and manual records about the investigation despite having a search warrant.
“The respondent (Zuku) was uncooperative and refused to comply with the court order granting the Office (ODPC) access to search the respondent’s premises, digital and manual records, system(s), and database(s),” wrote Kassait.
“Faced with the lack of cooperation by the respondent, the Office was not able to verify the respondent’s assertions, particularly that they did not have the complainant’s records. As such, the respondent’s response to the complaint herein remained to be mere denials.”
Following the determination dated February 15, 2025, parties have been accorded the right to appeal at the High Court within 30 days.
