A Sh125,658 mobile money loss has evolved into a much bigger test of who should be held accountable when fraud strikes Kenya’s digital financial system.
The Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) has failed in its attempt to be removed from a lawsuit filed by M-Pesa user Paula Rogo, who is seeking compensation from Safaricom and M-Pesa Holding Company over an alleged mobile money fraud incident. More importantly, the court’s decision keeps the banking regulator in a position where its supervisory mandate could become central to the dispute.
Rogo claims she was defrauded after receiving a call from an individual who presented himself as a Safaricom employee. The caller reportedly used information that appeared to relate to Safaricom’s official communication system, including references to her M-Pesa balance, previous transactions and contacts. She subsequently followed instructions that resulted in the loss of Sh125,658.
The case raises a critical question; when a customer loses money through a sophisticated mobile money scam, where does responsibility end for the service provider and begin for the regulator?
The CBK argued that it was not a proper party to the case because the dispute was primarily between the customer and the mobile money operators. The court, however, rejected the attempt to remove the regulator, reasoning that CBK’s supervisory role could become important if the court eventually orders changes to how mobile money operators prevent and respond to fraud.
That distinction is significant.
Rogo is seeking more than compensation. She wants Safaricom and M-Pesa Holding to strengthen fraud-prevention systems, establish dedicated fraud-reporting channels, investigate suspicious operators and keep affected customers informed about investigations and possible outcomes. She is also seeking the establishment of systems that could reduce mobile money fraud within 180 days.
If such orders are eventually granted, CBK could be required to use its supervisory powers to ensure compliance. This explains why the regulator’s presence in the case matters beyond the individual Sh125,658 claim.
The dispute also highlights the growing scale of Kenya’s mobile money ecosystem. The newspaper data shows Safaricom held 89.1 percent of active mobile money subscriptions in 2025/26, compared with Airtel Money’s 10.9 percent. With such extensive market penetration, weaknesses in fraud controls can affect millions of users.
Safaricom and M-Pesa Holding have separately argued that Rogo should first pursue the dispute-resolution process provided under the Communications Authority framework. The court rejected that argument, finding that the relevant regulation makes the process optional and that the High Court therefore retained jurisdiction.
The case is scheduled for mention on September 17. The bigger issue is therefore not simply whether one customer should recover Sh125,658. It is whether Kenya’s regulatory framework is adequately equipped to protect consumers as mobile money becomes increasingly central to everyday financial transactions.
