The Court of Appeal, Abuja, has ordered Globacom Nigeria Limited to pay the sum of N2m to a customer, Hadiza Abdullahi, for swapping her sim card without her permission.
In the judgement delivered on December 16, 2024, the appellate court upheld the decision of Justice A.I. Chikere of the Federal High Court, Abuja, who held that the company violated the customer’s right of privacy when it conducted a sim swap on the customer’s line.
In a certified true copy (CTC) of the judgment seen by THE WHISTLER, Justice Chikere held that Globacom was wrong to have re-allocated her registered GLO SIM Number, (withheld), under the SIM Swap programme to a third party, thereby exposing her to security risk.
The court dismissed the company’s objections which stated that the customer, through one Mohammed Yusuf who claimed to be her husband, gave consent to the swapping of her sim card.
The company had claimed that the swap met all requirements by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC).
According to the company’s witness, Yusuf had claimed that his wife was heavily pregnant and could not appear physically to do the swap, but provided the required documents needed to initiate the swap.
Justice Chikere held that sufficient evidence was not provided to prove that the said Yusuf was her husband and being third party, the company broke the customer’s trust.
The court therefore ordered that the company pays the customer the sum of N2,000,000 (two million naira only), as exemplary damages for unwarranted infringement.
Dissatisfied, Globacom, in an appeal marked CA/A/991/2019 urged the appellate court to decide whether the lower court was right to award the sum of N2m against the company and whether the sum was too high based on the evidence provided in the case.
The telecommunications company also prayed the court to decide whether the trial court was right when it failed to consider and evaluate the evidence of the company’s sole witness (DW1) who was the staff member who conducted the sim swap.
Delivering the judgement on behalf of the three-member panel of the appellate court, Justice A.M. Mainoma held that since the respondent (Hadiza Abdullahi) denied that the means of identification provided by the appellant (Globacom) belonged to her, the burden of proof lied on the appellant, which they failed to do.
The court, in an unanimous decision, held that the appellant seemed to be approbating and reprobating at the same time, by denying and admitting that it re-allocated the SIM card of the respondent.
Justice Mainoma further held that the appellant, “being a Telecommunications Service Provider, with whom the Respondent is registered as a subscriber, owes the Respondent the duty of confidentiality, by protecting her personal and private information.
“Such information is expected to be protected against improper or accidental disclosure and not to be transferred to any party without the permission of the Respondent or as required by any applicable Law or Regulation,” the court held.
The court held that though the appellant maintained that it followed the laid down procedure for SIM Swap, it however admitted that it was misled by one Muhammed Yusuf, who presented some documents to show that he is the husband of the respondent—a claim the respondent denied.
Justice Mainoma held that the trial court was right when it stated that “anyone who claims to be married to another without any material or compelling evidence can have his or her SIM swap. I must say that this action is most unfortunate as it exposes the affected party to security risk.”
He, therefore, said the trial court was right to award damages against the company.
On whether the cost was too high, the appellate court held that the company’s conduct is “arbitrary, unconstitutional, outrageously reprehensible and merits punishment.”
The judge held that by admitting to have swapped the respondent’s sim number to a third party, the trial court was right to award damages to the respondent. He therefore resolved the issue in favour of the respondent.”
In effect, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed,” the judge held.