According to a publication by Standard media, the High Court in Nairobi has recently instructed the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) to assess the legality of shifting Safaricom’s Lipa na M-Pesa Pay Bill transaction fees for government services onto consumers.
This ruling comes after a case filed by Moses Wafula, who argued that Safaricom’s practice of passing transaction costs to users placed an unfair financial burden on consumers.
The court concluded that the CA is best suited to handle such disputes and that if necessary, it can provide solutions.
The case began when Wafula filed a petition claiming that Safaricom’s practice of charging consumers for Pay Bill transactions for government services is unconstitutional.
He argued that businesses and government agencies are exploiting the system by passing their transaction costs onto the public, making the people bear the financial load.
Wafula also criticized Safaricom for limiting payments for essential services, such as court fees and utility bills, to the Pay Bill option, which comes with a fee, while excluding other, cost-free methods like the “buy goods” payment method.
According to him, this arrangement leads to double charges for consumers who are already paying for goods or services.
In his petition, Wafula proposed that Safaricom should revise its agreements with corporate and government clients to remove any clauses that allow these parties to shift transaction costs onto the public.
He also accused Safaricom of encouraging users to incur charges when repaying digital loans.
Wafula pointed out that certain companies require loan repayments to be made exclusively through the Pay Bill service, with no alternative payment methods offered, adding to the financial burden on consumers.
Regulatory bodies like the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) and the CA were also named in the petition.
Wafula accused them of failing in their duties to protect consumers.
He claimed that these authorities neglected their oversight roles, allowing practices that exploit the public to continue unchecked.
The court’s ruling on January 22, 2025, dismissed Wafula’s case against Safaricom, the Treasury Cabinet Secretary, the CBK, the Attorney General, and the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK), citing procedural grounds.
The judge noted that Wafula had not involved the CA in the dispute before turning to the court.
The court emphasized that the CA has the expertise to handle such matters and that its decisions could be appealed through a tribunal set up under the Kenya Information and Communications Act.
This ruling highlights the role of the CA in addressing disputes related to payment platforms like Safaricom’s Pay Bill service.
The decision also ensures that affected individuals and organizations have an avenue to challenge such decisions through a legal process if necessary.
It shows that regulatory agencies are expected to step in and mediate when disputes arise, providing a clear path for consumers to seek justice if they feel they are being unfairly treated.
The case is a reminder that consumer interests should be protected, and that businesses and regulatory authorities must ensure fair practices in the digital economy.
Add Comment