"CAK DOES NOT CONDONE CORRUPTION AND HAS A POLICY THAT PROTECTS WHISTLE BLOWERS WHO REPORT UNETHICAL AND CORRUPT PRACTICES"
"LEARN MORE ON CAK's COMPLAINTS HANDLING POLICY, PROCEDURE AND THE SERVICE DELIVERY CHARTER, BY CLICKING HERE"
|Commencement Date||Background||Authority's Findings||Authority's Decision||Date of publication on the Kenya Gazette|
|CAK/EC/05/80/A||Competition Authority of Kenya VS Consumer Link Communication Limited||4th February 2015||Consumer Link communication Limited a member of Outdoor Advertising Association of Kenya (OAAK)was alleged to have engaged in restrictive trade practices in particular price fixing for 12MX12M bill boards.||Consumer Link communication Limited was found to be in breach of Section 22(1) (b) of the Competition Act and a fine of KSh 1,200,000 was imposed on the company.||15th October,2015|
|CAK/EC/054/76/A||Competition Authority of Kenya Vs Firm Bridge Ltd||4th February 2015||Firm Bridge Ltd a member of Outdoor Advertising Association of Kenya (OAAK)was alleged to have engaged in restrictive trade practices in particular price fixing for 12MX12M bill boards.||Firm Bridge Ltd was found to be in breach of Section 22(1) (b) of the Competition Act and a fine of KSh 604,352 was imposed on the company.||2nd November 2015|
|CAK/EC/05/74/A||Competition Authority of Kenya Vs Live AD Limited||4th February 2015||Vs Live AD Limited a member of Outdoor Advertising Association of Kenya (OAAK)was alleged to have engaged in restrictive trade practices in particular price fixing for 12MX12M bill boards.||Live AD Limited was found to be in breach of Section 22(1) (b) of the Competition Act and a fine of KSh 2,500,000 was imposed on the company.||21st September 2015|
|CAK/EC/05/70/A||Competition Authority of Kenya Vs A1 Outdoor Limited||4th February 2015||A1 Outdoor Limited a member of Outdoor Advertising Association of Kenya (OAAK)was alleged to have engaged in restrictive trade practices in particular price fixing for 12MX12M bill boards.||A1 Outdoor Limited was found to be in breach of Section 22(1) (b) of the Competition Act and a fine of KSh 114,000 was imposed on the company.||21st September 2015|
|No.||Case/inquiry||Sector/market affected||Relevant section of the Law||Case summary||Status/Decision|
|1||Mr. Erick Maina Njuguna vs. Viva Company||Tele communications||Falls under the Communications Authority||Mr. Erick Maina alleged that VIVA Company violated a business agreement, on marketing of short code 20242 and key word SMART services, by failing to refund him Ksh. 51,000 for the job he had worked for, as per their agency agreement.||Matter forwarded to the Communications Authority of Kenya as it does not fall within the Competition Act|
|2||Festus Mbuimwe vs Orange Limited||ICT||Section 55(b)(ii) on false and misleading representation||A complaint was lodged against Orange, citing misleading representation in regard to their "7days unlimited" internet offer which was in fact not unlimited.||Case finalized.
Orange complied with a directive by the Authority to create awareness on their capping policy that comes with the internet offer.
|3||Lucy Kimani vs Wananchi Group||ICT||Falls under Communications Authority||This case was lodged by Lucy Kimani citing poor service by Wananchi Group in regard to their internet service. She was not getting assistance despite numerous complaints.||Case finalized.
The complainant’s issue was forwarded to Communications Authority on 25/2/2015 for further action.
|4||Beatrice Ndungu vs Safaricom Limited||Tele communications||Section 56(4) on disclosure of charges||Beatrice Ndungu complained of charges on Lipa Na Mpesa services that the provider, Safaricom Ltd, had not informed consumers.||Case ongoing.
The Authority ordered Safaricom to create awareness and change Point of Sale (POS) materials in all petrol stations with Lipa na Mpesa service and merchant shops.
|5||Daniel Kathurima and Gotv||Tele communications||Sections 55(a)(v) on misleading representations and
56(2)(a), 56(2)(d) and 56(2)(e) on unconscionable conduct
|A complaint was launched by Daniel Kathurima citing alleged misleading advertising by the Gotv regarding the World Cup.||Case finalized|
|6||Marisella Ouma Vs Zuku||Tele communications||Section 56 (3) and (4) on unconscionable conduct||Marisella Ouma alleged that Zuku changed her package from the one she was subscribed to, to a different one and billed her for the new package without prior notification.||Case finalized|
|7||James Malala vs Dorothy (Director Nabongo TTC)||Education||N/A||The complainant lodged a case with the Authority on 2nd June 2015,in which he cited that, Dorothy Saiah Director and owner of Nabongottc and School conned his wife and his two kids Kshs 45,000 paid on 26th July 2013 K-Rep Bank Nabongo TTC A/C.
He claims that his donor Rosemary wired $ 3000 Australian dollars 222,900 /= to
Nabongo Ttc Bank of Africa on 25th august 2013 money for fees and upkeep's but Dorothy told him the bank taxed 20,000/= from 222,900/= and further wrote overcharge fees receipts for Esther 92,000/= ecde certificate course day scholar instead of 60,000/= Teresa & Gloria she charged them 38,400/= & 29,700/= ECD day schooling instead of 15,000/=.
|The complainant was advised to seek redress from the Criminal and Investigation Department since the matter was found to be criminal.
Further the complainant was also advised to report the same to the Ministry of Education.
|8||CAK and Diamond Trust Bank (DTB)||Banking||Section 56 and 57.||The Authority received a complaint that Kenyans applying for Canadian Visas are compelled to transact at Diamond Trust Bank and also obliged to buy United States Dollars at Ksh. 110 per USD, this was higher than the prevailing average market rates.||Case Finalized.
DTB letter dated 27th May 27, 2015 gave a satisfactory explanation and allayed the fears raised, as not being accurate.
|9||Aberdare Book Merchants Co. Ltd and
Barclays Bank Kenya Limited
|Banking||Section 57 (1) and (2)
|Aberdare Book Merchants alleged that despite servicing their loan, Barclays Bank still required them to pay safe custody fees for three titles held as security. They also alleged that Barclays unilaterally debited their account. Barclays also withheld three of their titles to enforce payments, this has denied them opportunity to access credit of kshs. 20 million offered by Equity Bank Ltd.||The same case is pending in High Court Milimani Civil Case No. 222 of Julius Githaiga Kiiru vs Barclays Bank of Kenya.
Since Sub Judice rule applies, CAK cannot proceed with the case until the court case is concluded.
|10||Annie Waithera and Naivas-Komarock||Retail||Section 64(1) on defective goods||Annie Waithera complained that she purchased a Hot Point Dispenser from Naivas Komarock
Which later developed a leak, this happened less than a month from date of purchase.
|Case finalized. The complainant’s defective Hot Point Dispenser was replaced by a new one. The consumer was satisfied with the settlement by Naivas-Komarock.|
|11||Hassan Khan and Standard Chartered Bank||Banking||Section 56 and 57||Hassan Khan alleged that their client called Ideal Ceramics Ltd took a loan facility with Standard Chartered Bank who have a clause stipulating that their client must place their insurance business through AON Minet Insurance Brokers.||The complainant reached a settlement with Standard Chartered Bank, they resorted to withdraw the matter.
East African Society of Insurance Intermediaries (EASII) made an advisory on Credit Protection Insurance Cover Procurement to Bancassuarance Agencies in Kenya which was aimed at settlement of rivalry between regular insurance intermediaries and bancassurance agencies.