CHUKWUNWEIKE AKOSA ARAKA v. ECART INTERNET SERVICED NIGERIA LIMITED; EAT ‘N’ GO LIMITED
FEDERAL HIGH COURT
(ABUJA DIVISION)
(NWITE, J)
BACKGROUND FACT
The Applicant, Chukwunweike Akosa Araka, was a registered and frequent user of Jumia Food, a now defunct food delivery service operated by Ecart Internet Services (the 1st Respondent). The platform provided users with access to a variety of local restaurants through a mobile application and required them to register with personal details such as their names, phone numbers, and delivery addresses. As part of its business model, Jumia Food facilitated transactions between customers and restaurants by forwarding the customer’s food order, along with their contact details, to the chosen restaurant to enable order fulfillment and delivery. One of the Applicant’s preferred vendors on Jumia Food was Domino’s Pizza, a restaurant chain owned and operated by Eat ‘N’ Go Limited (the 2nd Respondent). The Applicant regularly placed orders for meals from Domino’s Pizza through Jumia Food but had never directly shared his phone number or home address with Domino’s Pizza or Eat ‘N’ Go Limited. His only point of engagement with the restaurant chain was through Jumia Food.
In March 2023, the Applicant placed three separate orders from Domino’s Pizza using Jumia Food. However, seven months after these transactions, he began receiving unsolicited direct marketing messages from Domino’s Pizza. The messages contained promotional content and advertisements, encouraging him to place further orders. This unexpected and unsolicited communication led the Applicant to suspect that his personal data, particularly his phone number and possibly his address, had been unlawfully shared by Jumia Food with Domino’s Pizza without his consent. Concerned about the unauthorised use of his personal information, the Applicant sent an email to the 1st Respondent on 5th January 2024, seeking clarification on how his personal data had been processed and whether it had been shared with the 2nd Respondent. In its reply, the 1st Respondent denied liability for any privacy infringement and provided an explanation of its data-handling practices. The response did not satisfy the Applicant, as it failed to address his concerns regarding the sharing of his personal information with third parties for marketing purposes.
To prevent further misuse of his data, the Applicant proceeded to formally object to the continued processing of his personal data by the 2nd Respondent. He sent a written notice to Domino’s Pizza and its parent company, Eat ‘N’ Go Limited, requesting that they cease all processing of his personal information, including storage and direct marketing. Despite this formal objection, the direct marketing messages persisted. The Applicant continued to receive promotional text messages from Domino’s Pizza on multiple occasions. Furthermore, after placing another order on 30th March 2024 through the Glovo App, the Applicant noticed that the marketing messages were re-initiated, showing that the 2nd Respondent had ignored the Applicant’s request and continued to process his personal data for marketing purposes without his consent. Frustrated by this, the Applicant instituted an action at the Federal High Court to challenge the actions of the 2nd Respondent. One of the issues for determination was: Whether the processing of the Applicant’s personal data by the 2nd Respondent for storage, direct marketing and continued marketing even after receiving the Applicant’s letter of objection is unlawful given the provision of the law.
ARGUMENTS
Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the 2nd Respondent’s processing of the Applicant’s personal data for direct marketing purposes constituted a violation of the Applicant’s right to fair dealings as protected under the law. Counsel argued that in its attempt to expand its customer base and maximise business gains, the 2nd Respondent engaged in unfair, unlawful, and intrusive practices that disregarded the Applicant’s privacy rights. By leveraging personal data obtained without the Applicant’s direct consent, the 2nd Respondent exploited the Applicant’s prior engagement with the 1st Respondent, effectively taking undue advantage of his necessity and dependence on food delivery services. Counsel further submitted that the 2nd Respondent’s continued processing of the Applicant’s personal data for storage and direct marketing purposes lacked any lawful justification under applicable data protection laws. It was argued that the 2nd Respondent’s actions amounted to an improper extension of data usage beyond the original intent for which the 1st Respondent had collected the information.
Finally, Learned Counsel emphasised that the 2nd Respondent’s actions constituted a fundamental breach of the Applicant’s constitutional rights, data privacy rights, and consumer protection rights. By continuing to process and utilize the Applicant’s personal data for unsolicited marketing communications despite his explicit objection, the 2nd Respondent not only violated established data protection principles but also engaged in conduct that was inconsistent with fair commercial practices and the Applicant’s right to control the use of his personal information.
Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent in response argued that the Applicant had consented to the processing of their personal data when placing orders through the 1st Respondent’s Jumia Food platform, as such data was necessary for order fulfilment and delivery. Counsel maintained that the data was handled lawfully, fairly, and transparently, with its retention from May 2023 to January 2024 being reasonable for legitimate business purposes. Regarding the Applicant’s complaint about direct marketing messages, Counsel submitted that the 1st Respondent relayed this to the 2nd Respondent, which interpreted it as a request for data deletion. Consequently, the 2nd Respondent removed the Applicant’s details from its database, ceasing all marketing communications.
Counsel contended further that the flow of marketing messages was lawfully reinstated when the Applicant placed a new order in March 2024, effectively renewing the business relationship and consent for data processing. Since the fresh transaction provided a legal basis for continued communication, the 2nd Respondent’s actions did not amount to unlawful data processing. Thus, Counsel maintained that the Applicant’s claims of privacy violations were unfounded, as the 2nd Respondent had acted within legal and regulatory frameworks governing data protection and fair business practices.
DECISION OF THE COURT
In resolving the issue, the Federal High Court held that:
Data processing is lawful only when it is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party or for steps taken at the request of the data subject before entering into a contract. The court emphasised that the mere inclusion of an opt-out option in the direct marketing messages did not equate to prior consent from the Applicant to receive such communications.
Consequently, the court found that the 2nd Respondent lacked any legal basis under Nigerian law to send direct marketing messages to the Applicant. The unauthorised use of the Applicant’s personal data for marketing purposes constituted a violation of data protection laws, affirming that the 2nd Respondent had no lawful right to process or retain the Applicant’s information beyond the scope of fulfilling the initial food order.
Issue resolved in favour of the Applicant.
Vincent Ehimhanre Odafen Esq, with Oladipupo Ige Esq, Chinagorom Franklin Ogbu Esq, Izuchukwu Anyadike Esq, Iliya-Ezekiel E. Ndatse Esq, Chukwunweike Araka Esq, Ahmed Ayomide Esq, Zainab Muhammed Esq, Sonia Odafen Esq, Chekiti Lois Titus Esq and Itaj Maureen Esq – for the Applicant
Prof. Bayo Adaralegbe Esq, with Halimat Kikelomo Salami Esq, and Precious Adaugo Onuchukwu Esq – for the 1st Respondent
Oyinkan Alakija Esq, with Omotolani Fasina Esq, Chukwudi Nwadike Esq, Lucky Ujor Esq, and A.O. Aladenuyi Esq – for the 2nd Respondent
This summary is fully reported at (2025) 3 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co.
See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company
