By Andrew Kariuki
The High Court in Milimani has delivered a landmark ruling recognizing mobile phone numbers as a core component of an individual’s digital identity, a decision that significantly reshapes the legal understanding of privacy rights in Kenya.
In the case of Erastus Ngura Odhiambo vs State, the court held that the reassignment or recycling of inactive mobile phone numbers raises serious constitutional concerns, particularly under Article 31 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy.
The petition, filed in June 2024 by inmate Erastus Ngura Odhiambo, challenged the long-standing practice by mobile service providers of reallocating phone numbers after periods of inactivity.
Odhiambo argued that a mobile number is far more than a communication tool, describing it as a gateway to highly sensitive personal data, including banking, tax and social information.
He told the court that once such numbers are reassigned, new users risk receiving confidential messages intended for the original owner, exposing individuals to potential data breaches and violations of privacy.
The petitioner further highlighted the unique vulnerability of prisoners, noting that incarceration prevents them from actively maintaining their mobile lines, leading to automatic deactivation and eventual reassignment.
Odhiambo, who is serving a 20 year prison sentence, said he lost access to his phone number while in custody, disrupting communication with his family, including his six children and contributing to the collapse of his business.
He added that institutions such as banks, the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) and insurance firms continued sending sensitive information to his former number, which had since been allocated to another user.
According to him, this amounted to a violation of his constitutional rights, including the right to privacy, equality, communication and access to information.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that while prisoners retain fundamental rights, those rights are subject to reasonable limitations.
Authorities relied on provisions of the Persons Deprived of Liberty Act, which permit restrictions on certain rights for reasons such as national security and public safety.
The Kenya Prisons Service maintained that mobile phones are classified as prohibited items within correctional facilities due to risks including criminal coordination, witness interference and threats to national security.
Officials told the court that inmates are nonetheless able to communicate through regulated channels such as supervised phone calls, letters, and scheduled visits.
The case raised critical constitutional questions, including whether digital identity is protected under the law, whether a registered mobile number forms part of that identity, and the extent to which inmates retain their rights while in custody.
Odhiambo argued that no law expressly bars prisoners from owning mobile phones and maintained that blanket restrictions are unconstitutional.
He further contended that denying inmates access to their mobile numbers effectively strips them of their digital identity and limits their ability to access essential services in an increasingly digitised society.
The court’s decision now sets a significant precedent in Kenya’s evolving digital rights landscape, particularly on how personal data and identity are protected in the modern era.
