Consumer Protection Cases

No. Case Sector/Market Case Summary Relevant Section of Case Status/Decision

1. Mr. Nicholas vs Transport The complainant alleged that Section 56(3) The matter was closed on 21st July
African Salihiya African Salihiya was overcharging Unconscionable Conduct 2 0 1 7 d u e t o l a c k o f s u ffi c i e n t
for incoming parcels from China. evidence to enable the Authority
pursue the matter.
2. Institute of Customer Retail The complainant alleged that they Section 55 a(i) b(v) The complainant failed to provide
Service Kenya(ICS) purchased a faulty Lenovo laptop False or Misleading the requisite evidence (receipt of
vs Unicode from Unicode Computers and Representation and purchase). The case was closed on
Computers they promised to replace it with a 56 (1)(2)(a) 20th July 2017.
brand new one but this was not Unconscionable Conduct
done.

3. Ms. Margaret Vs Retail The complainant alleged that Section 55 a (i) and (v) Upon the Authority's intervention,
Airtel Kenya Ltd Airtel exchanged for her a smart False or Misleading the complainant was compensated
Complaint t a b l e t s h e h a d w o n i n t h e i r Representation and the case was closed on 20th July
promotion for a smart phone 2017.
worth Kshs 3,999, but the phone
was defective.

4. Milimani Maternity Banking The complainant alleged they Section 55(a) The complainant failed to provide
Hospital Limited vs received a letter from Credit False or Misleading the requisite evidence (payment
K-Rep Bank Reference Bureau Africa Limited Representation and schedule of the loan). Case closed on
stating that their client was a bad 56(3) & (4) 19th July 2017.
debtor, even aer they had cleared Unconscionable Conduct
their loan.

5. Ms. Ann Vs Wrigley Retail The complainant alleged that Section 55(a)(v) The evidence in regard to medical
EA Company (PK) chewing the PK gum resulted in False or Misleading analysis was not sufficient to prove
mouth ulcers. She further alleged Representation the case, and hence it was closed on
that her body might be reacting to 14th September 2017.
the chemical composition used in
producing PK gum.

6. Mr. Daniel vs Glass Retail Mr. Daniel vs Glass Cra Ltd Section 55 (a) (v) Upon the Authority's intervention,
Cra Ltd False or Misleading the defendant requested the
Representation complainant to return the faulty
Section 56 (1), (2) (a) machines for repair/replacement.
Unconscionable Conduct The maer was closed in September
2017.
7. Mr. Ezra Vs Tuskys Retail The complainant allegedly bought Section 56 (2)(a) Upon the Authority's intervention,
Pioneer goods at Tuskys Pioneer and Unconscionable Conduct Tuskys refunded the complainant
w r o n g l y u s e d Tu s k y s S h e l l the full amount. The ma er was
Mountain View till number to pay closed on 30th August 2017.
for the goods through M-PESA.
Tuskys were neither willing to
give him the goods, nor refund the
money.

8. Ms. Winrose Vs Zuku Telecommunications The complainant alleged that Section 56 (3) and (4) Upon the Authority's intervention,
t h e r e h a d b e e n u n e x p l a i n e d Unconscionable Conduct ZUKU offered to resolve the maer b
frequent internet service ut the complainant had
downtimes, which she alleges was unsubscribed from the service. The
more than uptime on average. maer was closed on 19th July 2017.

9. Mr. Nehemy vs Telecommunications The complainant alleged that he Section 55 (a) (i) The Authority initiated investiga-
Safaricom Nanyuki bought a Lenovo phone from False or Misleading tions into the maer and as a result
Branch Safaricom Shop in Nanyuki which Representation the defendant resolved the issue by
was defective, and they were Section 56 (2) (a) provi din g a ne w phone to the
taking too long to resolve the Unconscionable Conduct complainant. The maer was closed
maer. Section 64 (1) on 7th September 2017.
Defective Goods

10. Mr. Peter vs. Delight Retail The complainant alleged that Section 55 (b) (v) The complaint did not provide
Solar (Nakuru) Delight solar declined to repair his False or Misleading suffici en t evi den ce (re cei pt o f
r a d i o d e s p i t e b e i n g u n d e r Representation purchase) and consequently the
warranty and requested him to maer was closed on 30th July 2017.
pay Ks h s . 2, 000 to purc h as e
another radio.

1
No. Case Sector/Market Case Summary Relevant Section of Case Status/Decision
the Act

11. Mr. Boniface vs. Telecommunications The complainant claimed that Section 55 (a) (i) & (v) The complaint did not provide
Retex Marketing Retex Marketing through a False or Misleading sufficie nt e vi de nce (r ecei pt o f
promotion, misled him to buy a Representation purchase) and consequently the
Vi wa t a b l e t w h i c h t h e y h a d Section 56 (d) (e) & (v) maer was closed in August 2017.
indicated was a Techno model Unconscionable Conduct

12. Ms. Teresiah vs Smart Telecommunications T h e c o m p l a i n a n t b o u g h t a Section 55 (a) (i) (v) False The Authority initiated investiga-
Mobile smartphone, from the accused and or Misleading t i o n h o we ve r, t h e c o m p l a i n a n t
Communication was misled that the phone could Representation Section withdrew the case. The maer was
use a Whatsapp application, but it 56 (1) (2) (a) closed on 11th October 2017.
failed to download the App. She Unconscionable Conduct
was never given redress by the
accused.

13. Mr. Kirogo and Retail The complainant alleged that he Section 59 (2)(a) The complaint was closed for lack of
Manufacturer of suffered harm as a result of medical evidence in October 2017.
Toast bread purchase and consumption of
Toast bread containing black
particles.

14. Mr. Wesley vs. Cooperatives The complainant claimed that the Section 56 (2) (a)(b)(c) The Authority engaged SASRA
Newfortis (formally SACCO was charging him an and (d) Section 56(3) (4) informing them of the rising trend in
Nyeri teachers) Sacco interest of Kshs. 40,000 for paying Unconscionable Conduct cases for interest on early payment.
the loan early, which was not A circular was sent by the Authority
disclosed prior. to all deposit taking SACCOS
requiring them to align their
operations with the requirement of
the Competition Act. The maer was
closed on 7th November 2017.

15. Clement vs. EABL Gambling The complainant alleged that he Section 55 (a)(v), (vi) The Authority initiated investiga-
participated in the Guinness “TOP False or Misleading tions however, EABL was found not
THE TABLE promotion” Upon Representation to be in violation of the Act, as the
sending the promotion codes, he codes had been used. The case was
received a response indicating closed on 6th November 2017.
that the code(s) had been used.

16. Mr. Simon vs Banking The complainant alleged that he Section 56 2 (a) The Authority initiated
Cooperative Bank of s e c u r e d a f a c i l i t y w i t h C o - Unconscionable Conduct i n ve s t i g a t i o n s ; h o we ve r, t h e
Kenya operative Bank of Kenya through complainant has also forwarded the
Asset Financing. He finished maer to NTSA, who resolved the
paying the loan but the vehicle maer. The case was closed on 1st
had not been transferred to him. November 2017.

17. Ms. Carol Vs KCB Banking The complainant took a loan from Section 56 (3) and (4) The complainant withdrew the
Bank KCB but was later informed of Unconscionable Conduct maer before the Authority could
charges that had not been finalize the investigations. The case
disclosed prior. was closed on 22nd November 2017.

18. CAK vs BATA Shoe Retail Several consumers complained on Section 55 (a) (i) False The Authority conducted
Company social media of the quality of shoes or Misleading investigations into the maer and
being sold by Bata Shoe Company, Representation Section ordered BATA to:
and ten lodged complaints 63 Unsuitable Goods a) Redress the maer by replacing
officially with the Authorit y and Section 64 Defective the faulty shoes.
regarding the same. Goods b) Amend their return policy to
allow consumers to return shoes
without the original package.
The case was closed in April 2018.

19. Mr. Simon vs Nairobi Water The complainant alleged that 56(2) (a) Upon the Authority's intervention,
Water Company N a i r o b i W a t e r C o m p a n y Unconscionable Conduct N a i r o b i Wa t e r C o m p a n y
disconnected his domestic water reconnected his water supply hence
supply claiming that he vends the the closure of the case on 3rd May
water and had not been 2018.
r e c o n n e c t e d t o wa t e r s u p p l y
despite paying Ksh. 80,000 as
d i r e c t e d b y N a i r o b i Wa t e r
Company.

2
No. Case Sector/Market Case Summary Relevant Section of Case Status/Decision
the Act

20. Ms. Lucy Vs National Banking The complainant took a loan with N/A The maer did not lie within the
Bank of Kenya (NBK) NBK and claims to have repaid it A u t h o r i t y ' s m a n d a t e a n d wa s
in full. The bank however referred to Central Bank of Kenya on
informed her that she still owed 30th October 2017 for further action.
them but they never gave an
explanation on the amount owed.
NBK further instructed her
employer to recover the amount
from her pay.

21. Mr. Raheel vs Kenya Energy The complainant alleged that N/A The ma er was found not to lie
Pipeline Ltd Kenya Pipeline Company was within the mandate of the Authority
increasing the storage and and was referred to ERC.
transport fees to petroleum
importers without approval from
Energy Regulatory Commission
(ERC) since it is the sole provider.

22. Mr. Stephen Vs Zuku Telecommunications M r. S t e p h e n c o m p l a i n e d o f Sections 56(1)(2)(a) & (e) Upon the Authority's intervention,
frequent down times of Zuku Unconscionable Conduct the ma er was resolved to the
Internet. c o mp l ain an t's s ati s fac tio n an d
closed on 8th November 2017.

23. Ms. Linda Vs Naivas Retail The complainant alleged that she N/A The complaint did not provide
Supermarket was charged for used cartons by sufficie nt e vi de nce (r ecei pt o f
Naivas Supermarket (Westlands purchase) and consequently the
branch) aer doing shopping. maer was closed on 8th November
2017.

24. Mr. Weldon vs. 1xBet Gambling T h e c o m p l a i n a n t c l a i m e d h e Section 56 (1) (2) (a) (b) The Authority investigated the
Ltd. deposited Kshs. 5,300 to 1xBet Ltd, (c) and (d) maer leading to the complainant
with an intention of placing a bet. Unconscionable Conduct being given a full refund. The maer
He later decided to withdraw the was closed on 22nd November 2017.
money for personal use. However,
the company declined the
withdrawal.

25. Mr. Erick Vs Gotv Telecommunications The complainant had an issue Section 55 Upon the Authority's intervention,
with poor internet connectivity False or Misleading the ma er was resolved to the
from GOtv that was not being Representation complainant's satisfaction and the
addressed despite several case was closed on 22nd November
complaints. He had also overpaid 2017.
Ksh.300 which was not refunded.

26. Mr. Mena Vs Kansec Retail Mr. Mena complained that he N/A The Authority determined that this
Electronics Ltd bought a Lenovo-YOGA Tab-3-pro was a fraud case and therefore
advertised by Kansec Electronics referred the case to Directorate of
limited but the product was not Cri min al Inve sti gat ion on 8 th
delivered. November 2017.

27. Mr. Tom vs Airtel Telecommunications The Complainant alleged that Section 56 (d) Upon the Authority's intervention,
Kenya Airtel Kenya disconnected his line Unconscionable Conduct Air te l re dre sse d t he ma er by
for unknown reasons and they restoring the services. The maer
refused to acknowledge and was closed on 14th December 2017.
address his complaint.

28. Mr. Rafe Vs DT Dobie Transport The complainant took his car for Sections 55 (b)(i) The Authority initiated
repairs and asked to be given an False or Misleading investigations into the maer and
estima te o f th e cost prior to Representation DT Dobie fully refunded the
commencement of the work but Section 56 (2) (d) & (4) complainant. Subsequently, the
DT Dobie sent him an invoice of Unconscionable Conduct ma er closed on 22nd December
work already done. He further 2017.
claims the prices were exorbitant.

3
No. Case Sector/Market Case Summary Relevant Section of Case Status/Decision
the Act

29. Ms. Lilian vs. Nakuru Retail The complainant claimed that N/A The Authority established there was
County Nakuru County Racecourse is not no contravention of the Act and
categorizing trade licenses hence the case was closed on 20th
according to the size of the December 2017.
business. Small businesses and
large businesses are paying the
same amount for trade licenses
which are likely to cause
foreclosure of small businesses.

30. Mr. David Vs Jumia Ecommerce The complainant ordered a Sections 55(a)(i) Upon the Authority's intervention
Kenya Samsung Galaxy S6 via Jumia but False or Misleading Jumia apologized to the complain-
he received a Samsung Galaxy S5 Representation ant and issued a full refund, hence
instead. He complained but was Section 56(2) the ma er was closed on 22nd
informed that since he had broken Unconscionable Conduct December 2017.
the security seal- which was in a
foreign language -they could not
refund or replace the phone.

31. Mr. Joel vs Telecommunications The complainant alleged that he Sections 55 The complainant did not provide the
Anonymous b o u g h t a m o b i l e p h o n e a n d False or Misleading requisite evidence to enable the
realized that the specifications Representation Authority pursue the maer hence
advertised were different from the the case was closed in December
actual specs. 2017.

32. Mr. Kevin vs Kilimall Ecommerce The complainant alleged to have Section 55 (a)(i) False Upon the Authority's intervention,
International purchased several items on or Misleading Kilimall fully refunded the
Kilimall International Limited Representation Section complainant. The case was closed on
website but found that the goods 56(1) 28th December 2017.
were defective and totally Unconscionable Conduct
different from the pictures on the
website. He notified Kilimall but
did not get any redress.

33. Mr. Steven vs Retail The complainant alleged that Section 55 (b) (i) The complainant failed to provide
Chokmart mini- Chokmart mini-supermarket was False or Misleading the requisite evidence to enable the
supermarket overpricing and double pricing Representation Authority pursue the maer hence
the consumers since it enjoys the case was closed in January 2018.
monopoly in the area.

34. Ms. Cathy vs Uchumi Retail The complainant alleged that N/A It was established that the maer
, Nakuma and t h e r e wa s u n a vai l a b i l i t y o f does not lie within the mandate of
TUSKYS original Moskill Mats mosquito the Authority and the complainant
repellant in Uchumi, Nakuma, was referred to the Ministry of
Naivas and other supermarkets Trade, Industry and Cooperatives
and instead, only the less effective and Kenya Association of
Vapemats were available. Manufacturers, in December 2017.

35. Ms. Baldeep Vs Good Retail The complainant alleged that she Section 55 (b) (i) False or Upon the Authority's intervention,
Life Pharmacy purchased items on sale from Misleading Good Life Pharmacy fully refunded
Good life Pharmacy Nanyuki Representation t h e c o m p l a i n a n t . F u r t h e r, t h e
Branch but later realized that the Authority wrote a warning leer to
prices charged on the till were Goodlife indicating that information
higher than the prices on the label they provide to consumers should
of the items. not be false or misleading and in
contravention of the Act. The maer
was closed on 5th January 2018.

36. Ms. Alexina vs Retail The complainant bought a Section 55 (a) (i) False or The Authority intervened and
Naivas supermarket thermos flask at Naivas Misleading Naivas Supermarket fully refunded
S u p e r m a r k e t w h i c h wa s n o t Representation the complainant. The ma er was
retaini ng he at an d when the Section 56 (2) (a) t h e n cl ose d i n D e ce mb e r 2 0 1 7 .
complainant returned it she was Unconscionable Conduct
turned away.

4
No. Case Sector/Market Case Summary Relevant Section of Case Status/Decision
the Act

37. Mr. Kathurima VS Retail The complainant purchased a Section 55 (b) (v) False or The complainant did not provide
Galaxy Mobile phone but later discovered that Misleading sufficie nt ev i den ce (re ceip t o f
Accessories Ltd the warranty was void and facts Representation purchase) and consequently the
were misrepresented by the seller maer was closed on 12th February
that the phone was covered under 2018.
Samsung Warranty.

38. Gloden Electrical Vs Construction T h e c o m p l a i n a n t a l l e g e d N/A The Authority established that the
National misconduct by NCA staff which ma er does not lie wi thin its
Construction led to them be ing penalized mandate and referred the case to the
Authority (NCA) d u r i n g t h e r e n e wa l o f t h e i r C o m m i s s i o n o f A d m i n i s t r a t i ve
contract. He also claimed the Justice for action on 19th February
penalty was hey 2018

39. Mr. Adam Vs Posta Retail The complainant alleged that Section 55 (b) (v) False or The Authority established from the
Postal Corporation of Kenya was Misleading Postal Corporation of Kenya that
m i s r e p r e s e n t i n g d e t a i n e d Representation their charges are in accordance with
package le ers as parcels and the provisions of the Universal
overcharging the handling fee for Postal union, and the complainant
the same. was advised accordingly. The maer
was closed on 23rd March 2018.

40. Mr. Weldon vs. Gambling The complainant claimed that he Section 55 (a) (v) False or The Authority investigated the
Gamcode Ltd (Betin placed a bet, and the outcome of Misleading ma er and the complainant was
Kenya) the game was exactly as he had Representation Section compensated. Additionally, the
predicted. However, Gamcode 56 (1), (2) (a) Authority sent a Warning Leer to
cancelled his bet immediately the Unconscionable Conduct Gamcode and required them to
results were known. ensure the following:-
i) Consumers are informed of any
changes/cancellation immediately
an error is detected by the
company (Strictly before the start
of the matches);
ii) Consumers have a right to
cancel the Bet. The cash out feature
shoul d be ava il ab le in the
published Bets in order to offer
consumers an opportunity to
cancel the Bet, in case they change
their mind; and
iii) In the event a Bet is cancelled,
consumers should be refunded
back their stake immediately.
The case was then closed in
March 2018.

41. Mr. Tumani vs ZUKU Telecommunications The complainant alleged that he Section 56(1), 2(a) and (e) The complainant was unable to
and Kenya Power wa s i n c o n ve n i e n c e d b y t h e i r Unconscionable Conduct provide the requisite evidence for
down times. He also complained both cases and therefore the case was
that the cost of electricity tokens is closed on 9th March 2018.
high. He proposes that Kenya
Power should subsidize the cost of
electricity tokens and give its
customers value for their money.

42. Mr. Duncan vs Zuku Telecommunications The complainant claimed that Section 55 (a)(ii) &(v) Upon the Authority's intervention,
Zuku had offered him internet False or Misleading ZUKU redressed the maer and the
speeds of at least 5 Mbps/s and a Representation Section complainant also confirmed that the
maximum speed of 5.4Mbps/s. 56 (a) & (d) internet speeds had stabilized, hence
However, upon testing the speed, Unconscionable Conduct the case was closed on 9th March
he noted that Zuku was offering 2018.
him an internet speed which was
lower.

5
No. Case Sector/Market Case Summary Relevant Section of Case Status/Decision
the Act

43. Ms. Jacqueline VS Telecommunications The complainant claimed that Section 56(1) The complainant failed to provide
ZUKU Zuku had terminated her internet Unconscionable Conduct the Authority with the necessary
services before the due date even information to enable investigation
though she was paying every of the maer. The maer was closed in
month. March 2018.

44. Ms. Bey and Retail The complainant alleged that she Section 56(1)(2) (a, b, c, The complainant failed to provide
AMEDO Centre purchased items from Amedo d) Unconscionable the Authority with the necessary
C e n t r e o n h i r e p u r c h a s e Conduct information to enable investigation
agreement and cleared the of the maer. The maer was closed on
repayments. However, Amedo 9th April 2018.
started deducting her guarantor's
account claiming that she had
defaulted on the payments.

45. Mr. Solomon vs Retail The complainant alleged that the Section 55 (a)(i) False The Authority engaged KEBS and
Bordar Ltd white fawi floor tiles from or Misleading established that the tiles complied
Bordar Ltd were of bad quality as Representation with the standard requirements. The
they turned colour to black-grey Section 63 (c)(d) & (e) complainant was advised
when cleaned with plain water. accordingly and the case was closed
on 21st March 2018.

46. Ms. Joyce Vs Transport The complainant alleged that she Section 55 (b)(iv)(v) The Authority intervened and upon
SKYWARD AIRLINE made a confirmed booking with False or Misleading contacting the airline, the
LTD Skyward Airline from Nairobi to Representation Section complainant was refunded in full on
Eldoret. However, on the travel 56 (2)(d)(e) 19th April 2018. The maer was then
date, she had not been booked on Unconscionable Conduct closed.
the flight. She further alleged that
she asked for a refund which was
not issued.

47. Ms. Rose vs Nairobi Water The complainant alleged that Section 56(2)(a) The Authority established that the
Water Company there was a disputed 20 year bill Unconscionable Conduct complainant had not paid the water
t h a t N a i r o b i Wa t e r c o m p a n y bills for over 10 years thus the action
wanted her to sele in 6 months. by Nairobi Water to disconnect the
She alleged that her water supply water supply was not a violation of
was disconnected in October 2017 the Act. The case was closed on 21st
as a result of the disputed bill and March 2018.
has since not been reconnected.
48. Mr. Ken vs Retail The complainant alleged to have Section 55(a)(iii) False The complainant was unable to
Anonymous purchased a caprice wine and or Misleading provide the evidence of purchase
found the seal was broken. He Representation Section required to aid in investigation and
further alleged that the seller 56(1)(2)(a) thus withdrew the ma er on
refused to refund/replace due to Unconscionable Conduct 27/2/2018.
their policy of “goods once sold Section 59(1)(a), (2)(b)
cannot be returned”. Product Safety & Unsafe
Goods
Section 64(1) Defective
Goods

49. Mr. Edwin vs Jumia Ecommerce The Complainant alleged that Section 55 (a) (v) The Authority intervened and the
Jumia negligently indicated that False or Misleading complainant was issued with a
they would grant a Kshs. 500 Representation voucher of Ksh. 500 for his use to
discount for purchase of a phone. make another purchase. The maer
He made the purchase, and their was then closed in March 2018.
system either by default or design
failed to deduct the discount
thereby resulting in him paying
the full amount for the phone.
Jumia was unwilling to refund the
same .
50. Ms. Annie vs Zuku Telecommunications The complainant alleged that she Section 55(b) (v) False or Upon the Authority's intervention,
Kenya paid Zuku for installation of Misleading Zuku refunded the complainant the
internet but the installation did Representation full amount. The case was closed on
not happen and she requested for Section 56(2) 20th April 2018.
a refund which she was informed Unconscionable Conduct
would take 21 working days to be
processed as per the refund policy
but this also did not happen.

6
No. Case Sector/Market Case Summary Relevant Section of Case Status/Decision
the Act

51. Mr. Salman vs Tuskys Retail The complainant alleged that he Section 55 (b) (v) False or The Authority's staff visited the
Kisii (Chigware bought Sayona Subwoofer from Misleading Supermarket in Kisii regarding the
Branch) Tuskys Kisii branch, but it was Representation Section issue, and therea er the
defective and therefore returned it 56 2 (a) and (e) complainant confirmed that the
on warranty, however he had not Unconscionable Conduct maer was resolved. The case was
received any feedback despite closed on 3rd May 2018.
several follow ups.

52. Mr. Alex Vs KCB Banking The complainant alleged that he Section 56 (1), (2)(a), (d) Upon the Authority's intervention,
Kisii paid for a Cashlite machine in and (e) Unconscionable the complainant was refunded the
KCB Kisii Branch but it was never Conduct full amount by KCB. Further, a
delivered. Further, he was never warning leer was issued to KCB
refunded despite several follow regarding the conduct and the
ups. maer was closed in April 2018.

53. Ms. Joan vs Samsung Retail The complainant alleged that she Section 55 (b) (ii) False or Upon the Authority's intervention,
bought a refrigerator at Nakuma Misleading the complainant was refunded in full
prestige. A er some time the Representation and the maer was closed on 19th
refrigerator stopped working and April 2018.
on returning it the complainant
was told the spare parts were not
in the country.

54. Mr. Andrew vs the Telecommunications The complainant alleged that the N/A The Authority established that the
Government of Govern men t is tran smi in g ma er does not lie within its
Kenya information to people without mandate and the complainant was
physical interaction and telepathy, advised accordingly. The case was
he s ays that th e trans mi ed referred to CAJ on 9th April 2018.
messages are disturbing.

55. Ms. Rosebel vs. Jumia Retail The complainant alleged that she Section 56 (1) & (2) (d) Upon the Authority's intervention,
bought a Ramtons Fridge from Unconscionable Conduct the complainant was refunded back
Jumia. Upon delivery, she found Section 63 (d) Unsuitable her money by Jumia. The case was
that the fridge was faulty since it Goods closed on 9th March 2018.
was not cooling. She was not given
redress despite complaining.

56. Mr. Sam vs CIC Financial The complainant alleged that CIC Section 56 (1), (2)(a) The complainant failed to provide
Insurance Insurance Company had refused Unconscionable Conduct the requisite evidence to enable the
to cover his vehicle aer it was i Authority pursue the maer hence
nvolved in an accident in the maer was closed on 25th May,
February 2017 even though he has 2018.
a running insurance cover for the
vehicle from CIC Insurance
Company brokered by Maxwell
Agents.

57. Mr. Misheck VS Telecommunications The complainant claimed that his N/A The Authority initiated investiga-
Safaricom Limited KES 10,000 and over 200 Bonga tions into the ma er, which was
points wer e m yste rio usl y determined to be fraud related
transferred from his mobile to a through identity the. Safaricom Ltd
strange KCB Mpesa Account. intervned and resolved the issue by
compensating the complainant with
the full amount. Case was closed on
18th May, 2018.

58. Mr. Otieno vs Financial The complainant alleged that he Section 56(1), (2)(a), (e) The Authority initiated investiga-
Metropolitan SACCO cleared a Metropolitan SACCO Unconscionable Conduct tions into the maer. However, the
loan in December 2016 and the complainant confirmed the maer
SACCO has refused to assist him was resolved and he did not wish to
remove his name listed at Credit pursue it further. The case was then
Reference Bureau (CRB) for the closed on 16th May 2018.
last 25 months despite promises
from the SACCO Bungoma
Branch Manager assuring that the
maer will be sorted out.

7
No. Case Sector/Market Case Summary Relevant Section of Case Status/Decision
the Act

59. Mr. Christopher Vs Retail The complainant alleged that he Section 55(b)(v) False or Upon the Authority's intervention,
Davis & Shirtliff purchased a battery and solar Misleading Davis & Shirtliff seled the maer
system from Davis & Shirtliff in Representation Section amicably by giving the complainant
July 2016. In July 2017, the baery 56 (1)(2)(a) and (c) a new baery. The maer was then
failed to work and he took it back Unconscionable Conduct closed on 6th June 2018.
for repair. He claims that it had a
warranty of two years however,
Davis & Shirtliff have not returned
his baery despite making several
follow ups.

60. Mr. Joseph Vs Retail The complainant alleged that he Section 55 (b) (ii), (v) Upon the Authority's intervention,
Californian bought a Smartphone from False or Misleading the complainant was issued with a
Electronics Californian Electronics. Later, the Representation new phone and the ma er was
phone developed some defects Section 56 (1), (2) (a) closed in April 2018.
and it could not switch on. He Unconscionable Conduct
reported the issue to the accused
who took the phone for repair, but
the issue was never resolved.

Mr. Lewis vs Royal Retail The complainant alleged that he Sections 56 (1) (2) (a) (d) The Authority initiated investiga-
61.
Mabati Kisii Branch ordered for iron sheets from Royal and (e) Unconscionable tions into the ma er and Royal
Mabati, Kisii Branch, and paid for Conduct Mabati made a full refund to the
the same a er choosing the complainant who was satisfied with
colour he wanted. When he went the redress. Case was closed on 25th
to collect the iron sheets he was May, 2018.
informed that his choice of colour
was not available and hence made
to choose another colour which
again was out of stock. He then
requested for a refund which was
not honored.

62. Mr. Washington vs Bancassurance The complainant alleged his client Section 56(2)(a), (b), (d), The Authority initiated investiga-
Equity Bank, was forced by Equity Bank to (e) Unconscionable tions into the maer, however, the
Bancassurance cancel an ongoing insurance cover Conduct agent informed the Authority that
division of her vehicle and take another the client was not willing to pursue
cover with Equity's preferred the maer and hence it was closed on
agency for her to benefit from a 21st May 2018.
loan by the bank.

63. Mr. Rogers and Transport The complainant alleged that he Section 55(a), (v) False The Authority intervened and the
Western Coach sent a parcel via Western Coach or Misleading co mplain ant was a dvis e d b y
Express Express to Nambale, and since Representation Section Western Coach Express to collect his
that time the parcel had not been 57 (2)(d) (e) parcel at their Nambale branch
received by his recipient. He Unconscionable Conduct hence the case was closed on 10th
complained to the Company but in Business Transactions April 2018.
they were not willing to assist him.
64. Ms. Maureen vs Retail The complainant alleged that she Sections 55(a) (i) and (v) Upon the Authority's intervention,
Boundless bought a phone at Boundless False or Misleading the accused refunded the
Communication Ltd Co m munica tio n w hich was Representation Section complainant her full amount, and
advertised to have 64GB capacity, 56(1), (2) (a), (d) and (e) this was confirmed by the
but she discovered that the actual Unconscionable Conduct c o m p l a i n a n t . T h e a c c u s e d wa s
capacity was 16GB. She issued with a warning leer and the
complained, but was not given maer was closed on 6th June 2018.
redress.
65. Mr. Tom Vs Stawika Financial The complainant alleged that he Section 56 (1) The Authority initiated investiga-
Capital Limited applied for a loan but later noticed False or Misleading tions into the maer and thereaer
that there was a change of terms Representation the complainant confirmed to the
and that he was required to make Authority that the issue had been
repayments weekly over a period resolved to his satisfaction. The
of 3 weeks which was not as maer was then closed on 25th May
a d ve r t i s e d . T h e c o m p l a i n a n t 2018.
alleged that he repaid the loan in
two installments. He later decided
to apply for another loan, which
was rejected. He was informed
that he was still in arrears of his
previous loan.

8
No. Case Sector/Market Case Summary Relevant Section of Case Status/Decision
the Act

66. Mr. Chetan Vs Medical The complainant alleged that he Section 55 (b) (i) False Upon the Authority's intervention,
Cambridge Opticians we n t f o r a n e ye c h e c k - u p a t or Misleading the complainant was refunded the
Cambridge Opticians where he Representation Section Ksh.500. Case was then closed on
wa s c h a r g e d K s h s . 5 0 0. H e 56 (1), (2) (d), (3) and (4) 18th May 2018.
requested for the results of the Unconscionable conduct
check up and was informed that it
would cost him an additional
Kshs. 500, which he paid. He was
informed that the extra Kshs. 500
charged, would be waived if he
purchased new glasses from their
shop. He purchased the glasses
but they refused to refund the KES
500

67. Ms. Sarah vs. KCB Banking Banking The complainant alleged Section 56 The Authority established from KCB
that she deposited Kshs. 137,204 to Unconscionable Conduct that the amount was received but in
HELB's KCB account to clear her two tranches. The complainant's
HELB loan, which never reflected HELB account was credited with the
in the HELB account. amount. The case was closed in June
2018.

68. Mr. Daniel vs. Cooperatives The complainant alleged that N/A The Authority engaged SASRA who
Metropolitan Metropolitan National SACCO a d v i s e d t h a t t h e m a e r wa s a
National SACCO deducted him illegal charges dispute between the complainant
amounting to Kshs. 355,342 from a and the SACCO, thus could only be
loan he took from the SACCO. No han dle d b y the Co -op er ati ves
prior information on the Tribunal. The Case was referred to
deductions was given by the the Co-operatives Tribunal and was
SACCO. closed on 5th June, 2018.

69. Ms. Caroline vs Insurance The complainant alleged that N/A The Authority established that the
Madison General Madison General Insurance maer did not lie within its mandate a
Insurance declined her claim for her car, nd subse quently referre d the
whi ch was in volved in a n maer to the Insurance Regulatory
accident. The complainant had a Authority (IRA) on 14th June, 2018.
comprehensive insurance policy
from the insurance company.

70. Mr. George vs Mr. Financial The complainant alleged that Mr. N/A The complainant was advised to
Charles Charles, an M-PESA administra- pursue the maer with the police, as
tor had failed to activate an M- it was criminal in nature. The case
PESA till number the complainant was closed on 4th June, 2018.
had resold to a third party, even
a er being paid. He further
claimed that he was forced to
refund the third party the amount.

71. Mr. George Vs Buy Ecommerce The complainant alleged that he Section 56 (1)(2)(a) and The Authority initiated investiga-
USA purchased a bag pack from Buy (e) tions into the maer, however the
USA, to be delivered on 28th April Unconscionable Conduct complainant informed the Authority
2018, but that never happened, that the goods were eventually
citing unavoidable delays. He delivered and hence the case was
requested for a refund from Buy closed on 6th July 2018.
USA but this was also not effected.

72. CAK vs. Toyota Transport The Authority received several Section 55 The investigations are ongoing.
Kenya Ltd (TKEN) complaints regarding the poor False or Misleading
quality of HINO buses by Toyota Representation
Kenya. Section 56
Unconscionable Conduct
Section 59
Product Safety & Unsafe
Goods

9
No. Case Sector/Market Case Summary Relevant Section of Case Status/Decision
the Act

73. CAK vs. HP Laptops ICT The Authority received a Safety Section 59 The investigations are ongoing.
R e c a l l N o t i c e r e g a r d i n g H P Product Safety & Unsafe
Notebook Computer Ba eries Goods
which was announced on 4th
January, 2018. In the notice, HP
indicated that certain notebook
computer ba eries were
overheating. The ba eries were
shipped with specific HP
Notebook Series sold worldwide
from December 2015 through
December 2017 and/or were sold
as accessories or spares, or
provided as replacements through
support.

74. Anonymous vs Eco Energy The complainant alleged that Eco Section 55(i)(ii) The Authority published a Notice
Energy Solutions Ltd. Energy Solutions Ltd had falsely False or Misleading warning the public that the Eco
represented that consumers who Representation Energy Solutions Ltd products have
used their “energy saver ” not been approved by relevant
products, namely: eco gas saver; government agencies and the claims
diesel fuel saver; petrol saver; and made on their efficiency were false
kerosene saver would save 40% of and misleading. The investigations
the cooking gas and 20% of fuel are ongoing.
respectively.

75. Ms. Nyaruai Vs Retail The complainant alleged that she Section 55(a)(i)(v) The Authority initiated investiga-
Artcaffe purchased gluten free cookies False or Misleading tions which culminated to a
from Artcaffe which affected her Representation se lement agreement, where
health as she is gluten intolerant. Section 56(1) (2)(a) (d) (e) Artcaffe made an undertaking to
Upon contacting Artcaffe, she was Unconscionable Conduct ensure that the labelling of their
informed there was a disclaimer Section 63(1) Unsuitable g l u t e n f r e e c o o k i e s s h a l l h a ve
that the cookies had traces of Goods adequate and accurate information
gluten. including ingredients, and does not
contain contradicting information.
Furth e r, th e m an uf ac tur in g
environment is controlled in order to
prevent contamination of the cookies
with gluten.

76. Mr. Kelvin VS Auto Transport The complainant bought a motor Section 55 (a) (i) False The investigations are ongoing.
Cats International vehicle at Auto Cats International or Misleading
Ltd Limited which later developed Representation Section
mechanical problems. He also 56 (1) (2)(a)
established that the mileage had Unconscionable Conduct
been tampered with. The
complainan t felt the dealer
underestimated the mileage and
overpriced the vehicle. The
complainant informed the
accused of the same and requested
for reduction of initial price and
motor vehicle repair, but was not
granted.

77. Ms. Stella Vs Faulu Banking The complainant alleged that her Section 56 (2) (a), (c), (e) The investigations are ongoing.
Microfinance Bank parents took a loan from Faulu and (3) Unconscionable
Micro-finance at an interest rate of Conduct
12% p.a but the bank later adjusted
it to 16% p.a without prior
notification. The complainant
stated that upon their calculation,
they discovered that the loan was
aracting an interest rate of about
30% and not 16% or 12% as
purported by Faulu.

10
No. Case Sector/Market Case Summary Relevant Section of Case Status/Decision
the Act

78. Mr. Robert vs Pioneer Insurance T h e c o m p l a i n a n t h a d b e e n Section 56 (3) The investigations are ongoing.
Insurance Company remitting Ksh. 1000 as premium to Unconscionable Conduct
Pioneer Insurance Company since
July 2016 from his Pension. He
instructed the accused to stop
further deductions, but the same
was not effected.

79. Ms. Patience vs Financial The complainant alleged that she Section 56 (3) The investigations are ongoing.
Harambee SACCO took a loan and she was to repay in Unconscionable Conduct
34 months which she cleared.
Later, she applied for a new loan
from the same SACCO but was
informed that she still owed the
SACCO an d the sam e was
recovered from her SACCO shares
without her knowledge.

80. Apollo & Co Energy The complainant alleged that in Section 24(2)(a) The investigations are ongoing.
Advocates vs KPLC t h e m o n t h o f Abuse of Dominant
November/December 2017, Position
several cons umers started Section 55 (b)(i)
receiving inflated power bills from False or Misleading
Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd Representation
(KPLC). He added that KPLC was Section 56(2) (3) (4)
recovering Ksh. 8.1 Billion in Unconscionable Conduct
backdated bills from electricity Section 57(1)(2) (i)
consumers allegedly incurred on Unconscionable Conduct
diesel generated power in the year in Business Transactions
2017 but were not factored in the
monthly charges.

81. Mr. Vincent Vs Kenya Insurance The complainant alleged that Section 56 (1) (2) The investigations are ongoing.
Orient Insurance Kenya Orient was taking too long (a)(b)(d)
(Orient) to honor his insurance claim aer Unconscionable Conduct
his vehicle was involved in an
accident.

82. Mr. Stephen vs Kenya Insurance The complainant alleged that Section 55(a)(ii), (b)(i) The investigations are ongoing.
Orient Insurance Kenya Orient Insurance Ltd has False or Misleading
failed to fully compensate him for Representation
repairs of his vehicle which was Section 56 (1) &
involved in an accident. (2)(a)(b)(c)(e)
Unconscionable Conduc

83. Mr. Francis vs. Cute Retail The complainant claims that he Section 55 (a)(i) & (b) (v) The investigations are ongoing.
Kitchen Ltd purchased a sugarcane machine False or Misleading
from Cute Kitchen Ltd. Aer one Representation
wee k, the m ac hin e b eca me Section 56 (1) (2) (a) &
defective and he reported the (b)
maer to the seller who promised Unconscionable Conduct
that he would send him a spare
part to rectify the issue. However,
the s eller did not honor the
promise.

84. Mr. Felix vs Chloride Retail The complainant alleged to have Section 56 (1), (2)(a) (e) The investigations are ongoing.
Exide-Kisii Service bought a new baery which had a Unconscionable Conduct
Center one year warranty from Semo-
Kisii town, which was found to be
faulty. He returned the baery to S
emo an d was referre d to
Chloride Exi de-Kisii Service
Centre where he was told that the
baery had low acid which led to
its malfunction and thus could not
be refunded.

11
No. Case Sector/Market Case Summary Relevant Section of Case Status/Decision
the Act

85. Mr. Barnes and Transport The complainant alleged that he Section 56 (1)(2)(a) The investigations are ongoing.
Modern Coast sent a parcel from Nairobi to Unconscionable Conduct
Express Kisumu via Modern Coast
Express in their T- Mall office and
the parcel was not delivered.
He further alleged that the bus
c o m p a n y r e f u s e d t o g i ve a n
explanation nor avail the parcel
even aer writing to them three
times.

86. Mr. Obed Vs KPLC Energy The complainant alleged that N/A The investigations are ongoing.
KPLC had overcharged him. On
complainin g t o KPLC, they
reviewed the bill downwards
which was still so high
considering his usual bill.

87. Ms. Agnes vs KPLC Energy The complainant alleged that her N/A The investigations are ongoing.
bill was overstated in the month of
February, 2018.

88. Kenyon limited vs Retail The complainant bought a Mig Section 55 (a) (i), (b) (ii), The investigations are ongoing.
Toolcra ltd welding machine from Toolcra (v)
Limited. The complainant alleged False or Misleading
that the machine was substandard Representation
since it broke down severally and Section 56 (1), (2) (a)
has never been put into use. The Unconscionable Conduct
complainant alleged he took the
machine to the accused for repairs
but it was still not working.

89. CAK vs Coca-Cola Manufacturing The Authority received a test Section 55(a)(i) False or The investigations are ongoing.
Company report by State University of New Misleading
York regarding synthetic polymer Representation
contamination in bo led water. Section 59(1), (2)
The report indicated that Dasani Product safety & Unsafe
water, supplied in Kenya, was Goods
amongst the contaminated
brands.

90. Mr. Edwin VS Equity Banking The complainant alleged that in Section 56(1)(3)(4) The investigations are ongoing.
Bank October 2016 he finished paying Unconscionable Conduct
for an Equiloan but the bank still
indicated that he had an
outstanding balance.

91. Mr. Tom Vs M/S Legal The complainant alleged that he N/A The investigations are ongoing.
Oguu & Company had sourced for legal services
from Oguu Mboya & Company
Advocates regarding a case at the
Cooperative Tribunal in Kisumu
an d h e h as n eve r rec eive d
information of the verdict since
the ruling was done. He asked the
Authority to help him get the
verdict for the case.

92. Mr. Nicholas Vs Retail The complainant alleged that the N/A The investigations are ongoing.
Stranmore Holdings accused refused to notify him of
Ltd the arrival of his motor vehicle
from Japan in April 2017, and in
the process it accrued storage
charges.

93. Mr. Joseph Vs Telecommunications The complainant alleged that the Section 55(a)(v) The investigations are ongoing.
Safaricom PLC 1GB data bundle advertised by False or Misleading
Safaricom is not actually 1GB and Representation
therefore misleading and
fraudulent to consumers.

12
No. Case Sector/Market Case Summary Relevant Section of Case Status/Decision
the Act

94. Mr. Werner Vs Retail The complainant alleged that his Section 56 (1), (2) (a) and The investigations are ongoing.
Nakuma Ltd N a k u m a l o y a l t y c a r d h a d (b) of the Act
(Under Receivership) accumulated about 40,000 points Unconscionable Conduct
that he was not able to redeem.

95. Mr. Paul vs Zuku Telecommunications The complainant alleged that he 56 (1) (2) (a) (d) & (e) of The investigations are ongoing.
purchased an unlimited internet the Act on
bundle of up to 30 mbps, however, Unconscionable
the connection was below 5 mbps Conduct.
for a consecutive period of 5
months. He lodged complaints
with the service provider but
never received any redress.

96. Mr. Gabriel vs. TNT Transport The complainant alleged that he Section 57(2) (a) (c) (d) The investigations are ongoing.
World Couriers used TNT World Couriers to send (f) (g) and (k) i.e.
a p a c k a g e t o t h e U K. T N T unconscionable conduct
mishandled the goods leading to in business transactions
financial loss of an approximate
s u m o f 7 0 0 E u r o s. U p o n c
omplaining to the service
provider, the service provider
only offered a compensation of 1
Dollar.

97. Mr. Geoffrey Vs Get Financial The complainant alleged he took a Section 56(2)(c)(d)(e) (3) The investigations are ongoing.
Bucks Kenya loan at Get Bucks Kenya and he and (4) of the Act
has been paying but the payable
amount has increasing rather than
reducing.

98. Mr. Samson vs Retail The complainant alleged that he Section 55 (a) (i), (b) (v) The investigations are ongoing.
Infinity Enterprises bought two smartphones from and 56 (1) (2) (a) of the
Infinity Youth Enterprises. On Act
using the phones he realized the
phones had no internal memory
and had no provision for external
memory expansion as represented
during the sale.

99. Mr. Kennedy vs Insurance The complainant accused Sanlam Section 56 The investigations are ongoing.
Sanlam Life Life Insurance for failure to pay for Unconscionable Conduct
Insurance Co. ltd the policies taken by his mother
before her death.

100. Mr. Rufus vs Real Estate The complainant alleged that he Section 56(1)(2) The investigations are ongoing.
Property Reality purchased a plot from PRC but the Unconscionable Conduct
Company (PRC) company did not meet its side of
the bargain and when he sought
compensation, the company keeps
promising to pay back but has not
done so for over two years.

13