A Nairobi businesswoman has moved to the High Court challenging what she terms an unconstitutional policy by Safaricom PLC, which allows funds sent in error via M-Pesa to be automatically used to settle Fuliza overdraft loans — even when the sender promptly requests a reversal.
The Disputed Transaction
In a constitutional petition, Eunice Ng’ang’a argues that Safaricom’s handling of mistaken M-Pesa transfers violates multiple constitutional protections, including property and consumer rights.
The matter has been assigned to Lawrence Mugambi, who has issued directions on service and timelines for responses.
According to court documents, the dispute arises from a transaction made on September 4, 2024, when Ng’ang’a mistakenly sent Sh2,700 to the wrong mobile number.
She says she realized the mistake immediately and initiated the standard M-Pesa reversal process. She also sent the same amount to the intended recipient to avoid inconvenience.
However, Safaricom reportedly declined the reversal request, explaining that the unintended recipient’s M-Pesa account had an outstanding Fuliza overdraft.
Ng’ang’a contends that the funds were automatically deducted to offset the recipient’s Fuliza loan balance and were never accessed or withdrawn by the unintended recipient.
She maintains that when she sought assistance at a Safaricom retail outlet and later issued a formal demand, she was advised that the funds could not be refunded and was told to report the matter to the police.
She argues that the issue is not criminal in nature, since the unintended recipient allegedly did not benefit from the money.
Legal Arguments
In her petition, Ng’ang’a claims the policy violates her constitutional rights, including the right to property, fair administrative action, consumer protection, dignity, freedom of conscience, and freedom of association.
She further asserts that her contractual relationship with Safaricom does not authorize the recovery of another customer’s debt using her funds — particularly in the absence of a valid transaction between her and the Fuliza debtor.
Framing the matter as one of public interest, she argues that many Kenyans may have experienced similar losses where erroneous transfers are automatically applied toward digital loan products.
Relief Sought
Ng’ang’a is asking the court to:
Declare the policy unconstitutional and unlawful.
Issue orders quashing and prohibiting its enforcement.
Compel restoration of the Sh2,700 in dispute.
Grant broader refund orders for similarly affected customers.
Award Sh50 million in general and punitive damages.
Justice Mugambi has directed that the petition be served within seven days, with responses due 14 days after service. The matter is scheduled for mention on March 25, 2026.
The outcome of the case could set a significant precedent on how erroneous mobile money transactions are treated in Kenya — particularly where they intersect with digital credit products linked to mobile money platforms.
Tags
News