Man loses CCTV privacy case over failure to follow legal procedures
Maina, who had lived in the apartment for over 11 years, argued that the camera was aimed directly at his home, capturing his movements, including into his bedroom.
A privacy case filed by a Nairobi resident against his neighbour has been dismissed after the court found that the complainant had not followed the correct legal steps.
Samuel Maina, a resident of Ngumba Estate in Kasarani, sued his neighbour, Faith Kambi, and their landlord, Joseph Mutharia, claiming that a CCTV camera facing his house violated his privacy.
Maina, who had lived in the apartment for over 11 years, argued that the camera was aimed directly at his home, capturing his movements, including into his bedroom. He claimed the installation disrupted his family's privacy and hindered his children's ability to play freely in the common areas.
He noted that he raised his concerns with Kambi and Mutharia in May 2023, but his efforts went unanswered. He then reported the issue to the Kasarani Stadium Police Station, but no action was taken. When legal efforts to have the camera redirected or removed also failed, Maina took the matter to court, demanding that Kambi be ordered to stop using the camera and delete any footage.
"Doctrine of exhaustion of remedies"
However, Justice Lawrence Mugambi dismissed the case, ruling that Maina should have first filed his complaint with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC) before approaching the court, a legal requirement known as the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies.
The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, also known as the principle of exhaustion of remedies, generally means that a party must first pursue all available administrative or alternative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The principle aims to ensure that courts are not burdened with cases where other avenues for redress exist and have not been fully explored.
“This petition violates the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies,” Justice Mugambi ruled, striking out the case.
Kambi had opposed the case, arguing that Maina had bypassed the ODPC, which she said was required by law. She also maintained that she had the right to install the camera for security reasons, particularly after she claimed to have experienced threats, including strange individuals spying on her and leaving objects of witchcraft at her doorstep.
The ruling highlights the importance of following the proper channels before seeking judicial intervention.
The ruling also follows a similar case in Kilimani, where Justice Hedwig Ong’udi had ordered a CCTV camera to be removed after a neighbour raised privacy concerns. Maina’s case, however, ended in failure not due to the privacy issue itself, but because of the procedural mistake in the way it was filed.
Top Stories Today
