George Oryang

A Nairobi lady has sued Safaricom PLC after her KSh 2,700, mistakenly sent via M-Pesa, was used to offset the recipient’s Fuliza debt. Her reversal request was declined. She has now moved to the High Court challenging that policy as unconstitutional. When I send money to someone, my intention is clear that I am transferring funds to THAT person. I am not entering into a contract with Safaricom to help them recover loans. I am not agreeing to become a guarantor. I am not volunteering to settle another adult’s overdraft. How then does my money automatically clear someone else’s debt without my consent? We must be very careful as a country not to normalise silent policies that shift financial burdens to third parties. Digital convenience should not override basic principles of fairness and property rights. Yes, the recipient may have agreed to Fuliza terms. But I did not.And this is the core issue. If money is mistakenly sent and reversal is denied because it has already been swallowed by a debt recovery system, then we are creating a dangerous precedent one where corporations quietly prioritise loan recovery over consumer protection. At the very least, there should be a clear warning before completing a transaction:“The recipient has an outstanding Fuliza balance. Funds may be used to offset debt. Proceed?” This case is bigger than 2,700 shillings. It is about how far automated financial systems can go without violating basic rights.