Telecommunications giant Safaricom PLC is facing a serious legal challenge over how it handles money sent to the wrong number through M-Pesa.
A petition filed at the High Court by Eunice Nganga questions the company’s policy of retaining money that is mistakenly sent to customers who have outstanding Fuliza loans.
The case directly puts Safaricom’s practices under scrutiny and raises tough questions about consumer protection.
The dispute began on September 4, 2024, when Nganga accidentally sent Kshs 2,700 to the wrong mobile number. She noticed the mistake almost immediately and followed the normal M-Pesa reversal process to recover her money.
However, the request was declined. She was informed that the recipient had an outstanding Fuliza overdraft and that the money had automatically been used to offset that debt.
According to court documents, the funds were not withdrawn or spent by the unintended recipient. Instead, the money was automatically applied to settle the recipient’s Fuliza balance.
Nganga argues that this action effectively allowed Safaricom to use her money to clear another person’s loan without her consent.
After visiting a Safaricom shop in Nairobi and later sending a formal demand letter, she says she was told that the money could not be refunded. She was allegedly advised to report the matter to the police.
Nganga maintains that this response failed to address her complaint and shifted responsibility away from the company.
In her petition, she claims the policy violates several constitutional rights. She cites the right to property under Article 40, consumer rights under Article 46, and the right to fair administrative action under Article 47.
She also refers to rights relating to dignity, conscience, thought, opinion, and freedom of association under Articles 28, 32, and 36.
Nganga argues that her contract with Safaricom does not include an agreement to settle another customer’s Fuliza debt using money she sent by mistake.
She further claims Safaricom has a duty of care to reverse or refund money sent in error once it confirms there was no valid transaction between the sender and the unintended recipient.
According to her, this issue affects many Kenyans who lose funds when money is mistakenly sent to customers with Fuliza balances.
Nganga has moved to court under Articles 22, 23, and 165 of the Constitution. She is seeking declarations that Safaricom’s policy is unconstitutional and unlawful. She wants the court to quash the policy, stop its continued use, and order a refund of Kshs 2,700.
She is also seeking general and punitive damages of Kshs 50 million, as well as restitution for other affected customers who may demand refunds.
