A Nairobi couple has been ordered to pay their neighbour Sh200,000 in compensation for a privacy breach after CCTV cameras installed for security purposes intruded into the neighbour’s home for nearly four years.
The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC) ruled that the couple violated their neighbor’s privacy rights by failing to adjust security cameras that captured her domestic activities, kitchen and compound.
The case highlights the delicate balance between security needs and personal privacy in an era of increasing surveillance.
Data Commissioner Immaculate Kassait. The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC) found Platinum Credit liable of breaching Samwel Waweru's privacy.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
The dispute began in mid-2021 when the couple, Mr JK and Ms FW, installed CCTV cameras following a burglary attempt in their upscale Nairobi neighbourhood.
What started as a standard security measure escalated into a protracted legal battle when their neighbbours Ms LN and Mr GM, noticed that two cameras were positioned in a way that captured not just the respondents’ property but also extended into their home.
The complainants said they felt constantly watched in their private spaces, with the cameras having a direct view into their kitchen and private compound, creating an atmosphere of unease in what should have been their sanctuary.
The CCTV cameras, mounted on the soffits (beneath the roof overhang of the respondents’ first-floor house near a glass window), were directly facing the complainants’ premises, recording private and domestic activities within their home.
After polite requests to adjust the cameras went unheeded in late 2021, the complainants embarked on a four-year journey of seeking a resolution. They first sought community mediation through their estate chairperson in 2022, but the camera angles remained unchanged.
When the surveillance continued, they escalated the matter legally in August 2024 with a formal demand letter from their lawyer.
When that also failed to produce results, they sought administrative intervention in April 2025. A local chief confirmed the privacy violation during an on-site inspection but was unable to enforce compliance.
Ultimately, the complainants filed a formal complaint with the Data Protection Commissioner on April 22, 2025, marking a turning point in their quest for privacy.
The ODPC’s investigation uncovered several critical violations that formed the basis of the landmark ruling. The cameras were found to capture non-public areas of the complainants’ property far beyond what could reasonably be considered necessary for security, constituting excessive data collection.
Oops! Camera was rolling.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
Despite repeated complaints dating back to 2021, the respondents only made adjustments in July 2025—after the complaint was filed—representing an unreasonable delay that violated data protection regulations.
The complainants said they suffered psychological harm, including anxiety and sleep disturbances, due to the prolonged surveillance.
In her ruling, Commissioner Immaculate Kassait said that the respondents’ failure to act promptly on rectification requests constituted unlawful processing under Section 25 of the Data Protection Act.
The decision reinforced that security measures cannot override constitutional privacy rights and that emotional distress from privacy violations qualifies for compensation.
“Section 65 of the Act provides that a person who suffers damage by reason of a contravention of a requirement of the Act is entitled to compensation for that damage from the data controller. The Section indicates that damage included financial loss and damage not involving financial loss including distress,” said the Commissioner, in the ruling that reinforces digital privacy rights.
While the respondents maintained that their actions were motivated solely by security concerns, the commissioner issued an enforcement notice mandating future compliance with data protection laws. They denied all allegations raised in the complaint, asserting that the camera did not violate privacy rights.
The couple also contended that the installation of the cameras followed consultations with community elders and security representatives and was done in good faith, not to infringe on anyone’s privacy.
However, the commissioner noted that the respondents had not taken adequate steps to ensure that the CCTV’s field of view remained confined within their property.
“The Complainants' home is a private space, and continuous surveillance from a neighbouring property, even unintentionally, constitutes unauthorised processing of personal data contrary to Sections 25(a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Data Protection Act, 2019,” she ruled.
The Sh200,000 compensation sets a measurable consequence for digital privacy violations and could serve as a deterrent to others.
