Man sues Safaricom in mobile phone number ownership row

Safaricom shop along Kenyatta avenue, Nairobi. [Elvis Ogina, Standard]

Does a person own a mobile number once he or she purchases it from a telecommunication company, and can it be transferred to a new owner without consent?

This is the question that the High Court will determine in a landmark  case filed by Peter Mwaniki against the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA), a mobile services provider, and the new line owner, Dedsilva International Limited.

In the case filed before the High Court, Mwaniki said that he lives in America but has his roots in Kenya.

He said he bought a Safaricom line and had used it for many years.

He explained that he co-owned Dedsilva with his sister, Juliet Wanjiru Maina. He said that following civil cases between him and Wanjiru, they struck a consent in which he agreed to resign from Dedsilva and transfer his shares to her.

Nevertheless, he said, the consent did not involve him surrendering the mobile number.

“In the implementation of the consent, advocates for the 3rd Respondent and by extension the sister, erroneously and unlawfully demanded that the Petitioner relinquish ownership of the subject number. The petitioner expressly, categorically, and unequivocally refused and rebutted this demand. At no point did the Petitioner provide consent, authorization, or execute any instrument for the transfer of the subject number,” he claimed.

He told the court that sometime in 2024, while he was in the USA, Safaricom assigned the number to the company.

According to him, this was a change of ownership without his consent or participation.

The judge further alleged that he discovered that the line had a new owner when he landed in Kenya in 2025 and sought to replace misplaced sim card.

He said that he wrote to both the telecommunication company and the CA, seeking to have the number reversed to him, but he did not get a solution.

“The subject number, by virtue of its long-term registration, association with the Petitioner’s identity and its integral use in his personal and economic life, constitutes a valuable proprietary interest and an intangible asset,” he argued.

Mwaniki said that the transfer was a violation of his right to privacy as third parties would have access to his history, including financial transactions.

Customers affected

He alleged that it also impeded his right to earn, as it also affected his customers.

In addition, Mwaniki claimed that Safaricom’s procedures on SIM card ownership transfer are administrative, and not founded by law.

“To effect such a transfer without the registered subscriber’s express consent, verification, or participation was grossly unfair, irrational, and procedurally improper and in breach of the petitioner’s legitimate expectation to retain his number,” said Mwaniki, adding that there should be a process to return a number to the previous owner whenever an ownership complaint is raised.

According to him, the issue of mobile number ownership goes beyond the contract between a subscriber and a telecom company.

“While the relationship between a subscriber and a telecommunications provider originates in contract, the exercise of power by the 1st Respondent in a manner that arbitrarily deprives a citizen of a recognized asset linked to his identity, privacy, and economic livelihood transcends mere contractual breach,” he said.

Although slightly different from Mwaniki’s case, many Kenyans complain that a number that was assigned to their deceased loved ones has a new owner.

Mobile recycling involves mobile service providers deactivating and re-assigning unused numbers if they are not used after between 90 and 120 days. However, the risks involve the numbers being tied to bank accounts, social media, and mobile money wallets.