A phone user has sued Safaricom over alleged unlawful reassignment of his inactive mobile number to another subscriber, setting up a fresh test of whether telecom firms are complying with a recent ruling that recognised phone numbers as protected digital identities.
Elias Wekesa says Safaricom deactivated and reassigned his number without notice, consent or a hearing, cutting him off from services tied to the line and exposing his personal data to a stranger.
In a constitutional petition filed at the Milimani High Court, Nairobi, Mr Wekesa argues that his phone number was intrinsically linked to his identity, financial services and digital authentication systems, making it a critical digital asset.
“The court should find in the affirmative, on the basis that the respondent deactivated and reassigned the petitioner’s number without notice, consent, or hearing, thereby violating Articles 31, 40, 46 and 47 of the Constitution,” says the petitioner.
Safaricom is Kenya’s largest telecommunications provider, serving over 45 million subscribers, and remains one of the most profitable firms in the region. It dominates the mobile money market through its M-Pesa platform, which has more than 30 million active users and handles billions of shillings daily in local and global payments, savings and financial transactions.
“The court should hold that SIM card recycling, where it results in loss of a subscriber’s number without due process, is unconstitutional to the extent of that inconsistency with the Constitution,” says the petitioner.
He adds that the number was reassigned “without adequate notice, informed consent or any opportunity to be heard,” exposing his personal and financial data to a third party.
According to the petition, Safaricom deactivated the line on grounds of inactivity and later issued it to another subscriber. Mr Wekesa says he only discovered the reassignment after losing access and has since made several unsuccessful attempts to have the number restored.
He says that despite multiple demands, the telecommunications firm declined to reverse the reassignment, maintaining that the number had already been allocated to another customer and could not be recovered.
Safaricom, in email exchanges dated March 2026 attached to the court petition, maintains that the number had already been recycled under its policies and is now actively used by another customer, making restoration impossible.
Elias Wekesa says Safaricom deactivated and reassigned his number without notice, consent or a hearing, cutting him off from services tied to the line and exposing his personal data to a stranger.
Photo credit: File Photo | Nation Media Group
In the correspondence, Safaricom states that its current policy on SIM card recycling remains unchanged and that it continues to operate under guidance from the Communications Authority of Kenya.
“At this time, the current Safaricom policy has not changed, nor has it been affected by the recent High Court ruling. Additionally, Safaricom is regulated by the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) and not the courts.
The CA has not issued any directive advising otherwise on how telecommunications providers should proceed in relation to the ruling. As such, the current position remains unchanged,” the company said in an email response to the petitioner.
The firm further indicated that any changes to its approach would depend on directives from the regulator, noting that none had been issued following the recent High Court ruling on SIM card recycling.
Mr Wekesa contests this position, arguing that constitutional obligations override internal policies and regulatory silence. He maintains that Safaricom cannot rely on the absence of regulatory directives to justify actions that breach fundamental rights.
“This position is factually and legally incorrect as regulatory compliance with the CA cannot override Safaricom’s constitutional obligations. The respondent’s reliance on internal policy and regulatory guidance constitutes continuing violation of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights,” he contends.
He claims the reassignment violated his rights to privacy, property, fair administrative action and consumer protection, arguing that a mobile phone number is a core digital identifier linked to sensitive personal and financial information.
“The reassignment exposed personal, financial and communication data to a third party,” he says in his filings.
He is seeking orders compelling Safaricom to restore the number or, in the alternative, award him compensation and damages for the alleged violations.
“This case raises a fundamental issue of digital identity and constitutional protection in the telecommunications sector. The respondent’s actions were arbitrary, unconstitutional, and ongoing. The court is urged to uphold the Constitution and grant the reliefs sought,” he states.
The case comes barely a month after the High Court ruled that mobile phone numbers are protected digital identifiers and that their reassignment without due process poses a real threat to privacy.
Justice Lawrence Mugambi.
Photo credit: Wilfred Nyangaresi | Nation Media Group
In that landmark decision, Justice Lawrence Mugambi found that telecom operators cannot deactivate and recycle numbers without adequate notice, consent and safeguards, warning that the practice risks exposing sensitive personal data to strangers.
The court also directed the State to develop new regulations governing SIM card deactivation and reassignment, and to introduce safeguards to protect users’ digital identities.
The new petition now shifts the focus to enforcement, raising questions about whether telecom operators are complying with the ruling in practice.
Mr Wekesa was directed to serve Safaricom with the court papers so that it can file its response, with a mention scheduled for June 9 to confirm compliance and give further directions.
