| Authority: | ODPC - Kenya |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: | Kenya |
| Relevant law: | Section 25, 27 (a) & (c), 32, 33 of the Data Protection Act, 2019; Section 79 of the Evidence Act, Section 95(5)(a) of the Childrens Act; Section 2 of the Public Archives & Documentation Service Act; Regulation 12 & 40 of the Data Protection (General) Regulations, 2021. |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Violation - Resolved |
| Started: | 30 August 2023 |
| Decided: | 27 November 2023 |
| Published: | Yes |
| Fine: | N/A |
| Parties: | Joanna Block & Anor (legal guardians to V.O Minor) Others vs. Karim Anjarwalla |
| Case No.: | 1586 of 2023 |
| Appeal: | N/A |
| Original Source: | ODPC |
| Original contributor: | MZIZI Africa |
Legal practitioner Karim Anjarwalla violated the Act by posting court pleadings on social media without anonymizing a minor’s personal data, despite the court documents also identifying the minor. The issue wwas marked as ‘resolved’ after he quickly deleted the post.
Joanna Block (the “Complainant”) filed the complaint on behalf of a minor. The Complainant stated that Karim Anjarwalla (the “Respondent”) published a commentary on a case that he was handling involving the Complainants in which he cited a paragraph in the pleadings that identified a minor and his residence.
The Complainant alleged that the disclosure of the minor’s personal data without their consent violated the minor’s right to privacy contrary to the Children's Act and the Data Protection Act.
The Respondent confirmed publishing the said post on his LinkedIn page but averred that the contents if the post were protected by the Evidence Act as read together with the Public Archives & Documentation Service Act. He further avers that the publication was made in the pursuit of a legal claim and was therefore a permitted use under the DPA. It was noted that the minors details published in the post, were lifted from the pleadings filed in the High Court.
The Respondent averred further that a gag order was sought by the Complainant in the High Court which prompted him to delete the post from his page which declared the current complaint moot.
The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner confirmed that it could not issue a gag order against the the Respondent but that it could review the issue of privacy as regards the minor.
The ODPC found that the minor’s details should have been anonymised by the high Court and the Respondent and the lack thereof was a violation of the DPA. The ODPC also found that the right of erasure was achieved within 14 days as recurred under the Data Protection (General) Regulations, 2021.
Compensation was not due because of the prompt manner in which the post was removed from record.
The ODPC held that: