Coca Cola on the spot over differential treatment of its plastic, glass bottles consumers
The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision directing soft drinks maker Coca-Cola to put nutritional information and customer care details on its glass bottles.
The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision delivered five years ago directing soft drinks maker Coca-Cola to put nutritional information and customer care details on its glass bottles.
A bench of three judges of the appellate court ruled that the beverage maker did not persuade them that it does not owe the consumers of their products an obligation to provide them with nutritional information, storage and contact information as held by the High Court in 2018.
The case was filed by Mr Mark Ndumia Ndung’u, arguing that the missing nutritional information was essential to enable consumers to know the benefits derived from the consumption of the beverages.
Mr Ndung’u, who stopped taking soda four years before he filed the case, also argued that the e-mail address and phone numbers were essential to enable consumers give feedback, to make enquiries and complaints, and to obtain optimum benefit from the said products.
Nairobi Bottlers Ltd and Coca-Cola Central, East and West Africa appealed against the decision, stating that the beverage brands in Kenya complied with the food labelling requirements under the Food, Drugs and Chemical Substances Act.
“On the contrary, we find and hold that the 1st respondent (Mr Ndung’u) demonstrated to the required standard that the said omission offended Article 46 and the Consumer Protection Act,” Justices Hannah Okwengu, Dr Imaana Laibuta and John Mativo ruled.
Also Read: Coca-Cola formula a top secret worldwide
The judges further agreed with Mr Ndung’u that the differential treatment of the consumers of Coca Cola product in plastic and glass bottles is not justifiable.
“We say so because it literally means that if a consumer has low purchasing power and can only afford the Coca Cola product packaged in glass bottles, then because of his financial position, he is not entitled to the information supplied in the other similar product, but in a different package,” the judges said.
