• She complained that with her picture appearing on the paper repeatedly and on its online platform, it created a false impression that she had landed a huge fortune.
• She took offence with the angle of the picture, saying it showed her adjacent to an M-Pesa booth, giving the impression that she was either an owner or an M-Pesa agent.
Image: FILE
In 2020, a supermarket in Nyeri organised a promotional event and invited a media house to cover it.
The coverage birthed legal fights and a fine of Sh1.5 million against the media house.
Hilda Kamande runs a stall housed in the supermarket, promoting Samsung products.
The photographer took her photo, which was then used to accompany stories on Business Daily on diverse dates between September 2020 and June 2022.
In April 2021, Kamande filed a suit against the paper, complaining that her image was used without her consent and that it amounted to invasion of privacy and a violation of her rights.
She also complained that with her picture appearing on the paper repeatedly and on its online platform, it created a false impression among her friends and relatives that she had landed a huge fortune and riches.
Her sister Sharon Muthoni swore an affidavit stating that since Kamande’s “image was published in the Business Daily, she has been receiving numerous phone calls from friends and family enquiring about her newly found fortune.”
One of the articles where her image was used was about M-Pesa.
She took offence with the angle of the picture, saying it showed her adjacent to an M-Pesa booth, giving the impression that she was either an owner or an M-Pesa agent.
“...she contends that the caption in all the publications constitute a gross misstatement of fact as she has never been employed nor owned an M-pesa agency despite the publications alluding to the contrary,” court papers read.
But in its defense, the Nation Media Group argued that the supermarket’s owner had authorised the taking of the photos and that he gave consent on behalf of his employees as well.
The photographer also told the court through an affidavit that he obtained consent from the proprietor of the establishment to take and for subsequent use of the photos.
The paper also argued that Kamande and her employer did not limit the capture and use of the images to the promotional event only.
“As such, the respondent states that [it] was under the impression that both the petitioner and her employer had given blanket consent for the use and publication of the images of the petitioner.”
But in rejoinder, Kamande denied working for the supermarket owner and that “at the time, she was working for Samsung as a sales person. The said company was housed under Samrat Supermarket and Mr Shalin was the director and/or owner of the said supermarket”.
“The petitioner further contends that the respondent has not explained why they chose to represent her as an M-Pesa agent. She contends that the respondent took the photo in a manner skewed to fit their convenient narrative,” the judgment delivered on December 1 last year reads.
Kamande said her consent was not sought for the picture and that the fact that the photo did not show her posing happily for the shot was enough sign she had not agreed to it.
The court dismissed the defense by the paper that somehow Kamande’s bosses had given consent on her behalf, holding that “an employer possesses no such capacity on personal affairs of another person.”
The court also held that the petitioner’s consent was not sought and that her image was used for commercial gain.
The court ordered that Kamande be paid Sh1.5 million in compensation and that the paper meet the cost of the suit.