| Authority: | ODPC - Kenya |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: | Kenya |
| Relevant law: | Section 25(4), 26, 28, 29, 30, 37(1), 65 of the Data Protection Act, 2019; Regulation 12(3) of the Data Protection (General) Regulations, 2021 |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Violation |
| Started: | 20 February 2024 |
| Decided: | 17 May 2024 |
| Published: | Yes |
| Fine: | KES.1,050,000/- |
| Parties: | Liz Muthike Mukuzi vs. Video One Ltd |
| Case No.: | 313 of 2024 |
| Appeal: | N/A |
| Original Source: | ODPC |
| Original contributor: | MZIZI Africa |
Video One Limited violated the Data Protection Act, 2019, and was ordered to pay the complainant KES 1,050,000 in compensation. The company had obtained the complainant's images from a third party without consent and displayed them at its offices.
Liz Muthike Mukuzi (the “Complainant”) filednthe complaint alleging that Video One Limited (the “Respondent”) prominently displayed her image at it reception in their Yaya Centre location, without first obtaining her consent. She provided photographic evidence of her claim.
She further alleged that she did not have any relationship with the Respondent and had never visited their studio for the purpose of taking a photo. She averred that a similar image was however taken at a different studio, namely Royal Reel Photography. The Complainant averred that the proprietor of Royal Reel Photography confirmed to her that he never shared the photograph with the Resondent at all.
The Complainant further alleged that the use of the image was intended to benefit the Respondent commercially.
The Complainant alleged that she requested the Respondent to withdraw the image from use which request was ignored by the Respondent.
The Respondent confirmed their use of the image as stated, but pleaded lack of malice on its part, indicating that it was industry practice to display images in the manner it did. The Respondent also averred that it had apologised to the Complainant.
The ODPC confirmed that the images had in gave been withdrawn as alleged by the Complainant. The Office also found that the image was only withdrawn after it got involved in the matter contrary to the regulations.
The ODPC held that: