By Andrew Kariuki
The High Court in Nairobi has issued interim orders restraining State agencies and Safaricom PLC from accessing or sharing David Mokaya’s personal data, in a case that could shape the future of data privacy rights in Kenya.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye granted the conservatory orders on February 25, 2026, in a constitutional petition filed by David Ooga Mokaya against the State Law Office, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI),Safaricom PLC and other parties.
In the ruling, the court directed that, pending the hearing and determination of the application, the respondents and interested parties are barred from transferring, sharing, or disclosing Mokaya’s personal information, including subscriber details, call data, location records, metadata or any related information—without his express written consent, a valid court order or lawful authority.
The orders apply to all forms of disclosure, whether carried out directly or through agents, employees or associated entities.
The petition arises from claims by Mokaya that his constitutional rights were violated after his personal data was allegedly shared with law enforcement agencies without his consent, leading to his arrest and prosecution in a criminal case.
Following the issuance of the conservatory orders, the court directed the petitioner to serve all respondents and interested parties with the application, petition and the court order both physically and electronically by February 27, 2026, and to file an affidavit confirming service.
The respondents have been granted until March 13, 2026, to file and serve their responses to both the application and the main petition.
Mokaya has also been given leave to file a rejoinder, if necessary, by March 27, 2026.
The matter is scheduled for mention on March 30, 2026, when the court will confirm compliance with its directions and issue further orders on the expedited hearing of the case.
Justice Mwamuye also issued a penal notice warning that any disobedience of the court orders will attract legal consequences.
The case is expected to raise critical constitutional questions on the protection of personal data, the limits of information sharing by telecommunications companies and the role of State agencies in accessing private information during criminal investigations.
