| Authority: | ODPC - Kenya |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: | Kenya |
| Relevant law: | Section 8(f), 26(c), 36, 56(1) of the Data Protection Act, 2019; Regulation 14 (2) and 14 (3), Regulation 8, 14 of the Data Protection (Complaints Handling Procedure and Enforcement) Regulations, 2021, Article 31 of the Constitution of Kenya |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | No Violation |
| Started: | 16 April 2024 |
| Decided: | 14 July 2024 |
| Published: | Yes |
| Fine: | N/A |
| Parties: | Inga Kimaru vs. AMREF Pension Trustees |
| Case No.: | No. 584 of 2024 |
| Appeal: | Premier Credit Limited v Kimaru [2025] KEHC 9254 (KLR) |
| Original Source: | ODPC |
| Original contributor: | MZIZI Africa |
The ODPC found that the Complainant who alleged that AMREF Pensions Trustees had unlawfully disclosed her personal information regarding her pension to third parties, did not provide any evidence of unauthorised disclosure of her information by the Respondent. Additionally, the Complainant failed to exercise her right of objection by sending a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent.
The Complainant, a former employee of AMREF, alleged that AMREF Pension Trustees (the Respondent) had unlawfully disclosed her personal information regarding her pension. Specifically, she claimed that a SACCO she belonged to was aware of her withdrawal of her pension, and upon inquiry, an officer of the SACCO revealed that they received this information from one of the pension trustees. She further alleged that the HR department at her former employer had also communicated with the SACCO about her pension.
The Respondent denied the allegations, stating that they reviewed their processes and, through discussions with the HR officer involved, determined that they did not release the Complainant's information to any third party.
The ODPC found that the Complainant did not provide any evidence of unauthorised disclosure of her information by the Respondent. Additionally, the Complainant failed to exercise her right of objection by sending a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent.
Based on the lack of evidence and the Complainant's failure to exercise her right of objection, the ODPC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
The full text of the ruling is available below.
Share blogs or news articles here!