Facts:
The plaintiff, Fatna Faradji Kayuga, sued MIC Tanzania (PLC) Ltd, trading as "TIGO," for allegedly interfering with her personal privacy and disparaging her. She claimed that the defendant illegally printed out her private conversations and communications from her mobile phone and circulated them to a third party, who made the information public. The plaintiff sought damages amounting to TZS 450,000,000, an unconditional apology, interest on the decretal sum, costs of the suit, and any other relief the court deemed fit.
Issue:
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear a case involving allegations of unlawful interference with privacy and data protection, or if the matter should first be addressed by the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) as per the Personal Data Protection Act, 2022.
Rule:
The Personal Data Protection Act, 2022, mandates that complaints relating to data protection and privacy violations be submitted to the PDPC. Section 50 of the Act empowers the PDPC to order compensation for data subjects whose complaints are proven. Courts should not entertain matters that have specific forums for resolution unless those forums fail to provide proper remedies.
Analysis:
Defendant's Argument: The defendant argued that the plaintiff's case was filed in the wrong forum, as the PDPC has the authority to handle data protection and privacy issues. They cited sections 7 and 39(1) of the Personal Data Protection Act and Regulation 4(1) of the Personal Data Protection (Complaint Settlement Procedure) Regulation, 2023, which require complaints to be submitted to the PDPC.
Plaintiff's Argument: The plaintiff contended that her case involved tortious liability and sought compensation for unlawful interference with her privacy. She argued that the PDPC could not grant damages for tortious acts.
Court's Consideration: The court examined the relevant sections of the Personal Data Protection Act and the powers of the PDPC. It noted that the PDPC is authorized to order compensation and handle complaints related to data protection violations. The court referred to legal precedents emphasizing the necessity of exhausting remedies in specific forums before approaching the court.
Conclusion:
The High Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the plaintiff had not exhausted the available remedies through the PDPC. The court found that the PDPC was empowered to handle such complaints and provide appropriate compensation.