In a petition filed before the High Court, Eunice Nganga has sued Safaricom PLC, challenging what she terms as an unfair and arbitrary policy that allows the company to retain money sent in error to customers with outstanding Fuliza loans.

According to court documents, the dispute arose on September 4, 2024, when Nganga mistakenly sent Kshs 2,700 to a wrong mobile number.

She realized the error almost immediately and initiated a reversal request through the standard M-Pesa reversal process.

However, the reversal was declined on grounds that the recipient’s line had an outstanding Fuliza debt, and the money had automatically been deducted to offset that loan.

Nganga argues that the funds were not withdrawn or utilized by the recipient but were instead automatically appropriated by Safaricom to settle the recipient’s overdraft facility under Fuliza.

After visiting a Safaricom shop in Nairobi and later issuing a formal demand letter, she was allegedly informed that the money could not be refunded and was allegedly advised to report the matter to the police.

In her petition, Nganga contends that Safaricom’s policy violates multiple provisions of the Constitution, including the right to property under Article 40, consumer rights under Article 46, the right to fair administrative action under Article 47, and the rights to dignity, conscience, thought, opinion, and freedom of association under Articles 28, 32, and 36.

She argues that her contractual relationship with Safaricom does not extend to settling another customer’s Fuliza debt using her money sent in error, and that she did not consent to such an arrangement.

Nganga further claims that Safaricom has a duty of care to reverse or refund money erroneously sent once it confirms that no valid transaction existed between the sender and the unintended recipient.

She maintains that the matter is not unique to her case but affects many Kenyans whose money is retained when mistakenly sent to customers with outstanding Fuliza balances.

She has moved to court under Articles 22, 23, and 165 of the Constitution, seeking declarations that the policy is unconstitutional, unlawful, and amounts to an unfair trade practice.

Among the orders sought are a declaration that Safaricom’s policy of retaining erroneously sent money to settle Fuliza debts is unconstitutional, an order quashing the policy, a prohibitory order restraining its continued implementation, a refund of Kshs 2,700, general and punitive damages of Kshs 50 million, and restitution for affected customers who demand refunds.