For those of you who have been following the High Court’s landmark decision on mobile number recycling, the conversation just shifted from “what happened” to “how do I see the proof?”
I’ve seen many of you on social media asking for the specific wording of the judgment. It’s one thing to hear about a ruling; it’s another to read the judge’s logic yourself, especially when it concerns your digital identity.
As such, we are making the full 42-page judgment in Constitutional Petition No. E290 of 2024 (Erastus Ngura Odhiambo vs State Law) available for download and review below.
What most people don’t realize is that this massive win for privacy actually started with a petition from a prisoner. Erastus Ngura Odhiambo, serving a 20-year sentence, argued that because he was barred from using a phone in prison, his long-dormant Safaricom line was recycled and given to a stranger.
The result? His digital identity was handed over to someone else. His bank updates, KRA notifications, and family messages were suddenly being read by a third party. He argued he had become “digitally dead” simply because he was incarcerated.
Key takeaways from the full ruling
If you don’t have time to sift through the legal jargon, here are the most critical declarations made by Justice L.N. Mugambi on March 19, 2026:
- Your number is your ID: The court officially declared that a registered mobile phone number is a digital identifier that links to your private affairs. Therefore, it is protected under Article 31 of the Constitution.
- The 6-month deadline: The Office of the Attorney General has exactly six months to implement technical and legal safeguards to stop unfettered and arbitrary recycling of phone numbers.
- Consent is mandatory: Reassignment of a phone number can now only happen with the informed and verifiable consent of the previous owner, or after a rigorous public notice process.
- Prisoners and phones: Interestingly, while the court protected the number, it upheld the ban on prisoners possessing physical mobile phones, ruling that supervised communication is a justifiable and proportionate limitation for security reasons.
Read the full document
For the tech enthusiasts, lawyers, and privacy advocates who want to dive into the details, including the specific technical safeguards the court has mandated, you can access the full PDF below.
This is a turning point for digital rights in Kenya. We are finally moving away from a system where your digital life can be sold to the highest bidder the moment you stop topping up your airtime.
