I write once again to urgently follow up regarding my complaint against Ideal Appliances Ltd (MIKA Appliances).
On 15th August 2025, my refrigerator was seized from my home in Kamulu through an unlawful raid involving thirteen (13) armed police officers wielding AK-47 rifles, accompanied by agents of Ideal Appliances Ltd (MIKA Appliances).
This seizure was not supported by any summons, chain of custody, or court order. It was a blatant abuse of state power for private gain, and it has left my family without an essential household necessity to date.
I must emphasize: there is no “technical investigation” required in the face of such illegality. The use of police force to seize consumer goods in a private dispute cannot be sanitised by after-the-fact testing or regulatory processes.
Before KEBS considers any technical evaluation of the fridge, it has a constitutional and statutory duty to protect me, the consumer, from unlawful deprivation of property.
Both KEBS and CAK have clear mandates:
- KEBS under Sections 10 & 11 of the Standards Act and Section 55 of the Consumer Protection Act to order return or replacement of goods.
- CAK under Section 96 of the Competition Act to safeguard consumer welfare and prevent unfair, coercive practices.
I therefore request, as a matter of urgency, that KEBS and CAK jointly or severally order the immediate return and replacement of my fridge, without waiting for any “technical investigation.”
Only after the illegal deprivation has been remedied can any genuine investigation into product quality proceed.
Failure to act promptly will not only deepen the continuing harm to my family (daily food spoilage, costs, financial stress, trauma, distress, stress, depressions) but will also confirm that both regulators are shielding corporate misconduct instead of protecting consumers.
I humbly urge you to act this week to restore my rights and demonstrate your agencies’ independence and commitment to consumer protection. KEBS and CAK have clear mandates under the Standards Act, Consumer Protection Act, and Competition Act to order such immediate restitution.
Consumer protection mandate: Under the Standards Act and the Consumer Protection Act, KEBS’ first duty is to protect the consumer from ongoing harm. That means restoring the fridge (or replacing it) before starting any technical inquiry.
If KEBS refuses — just like CAK has already done — to order the immediate return of my fridge within the next forty-eight (48) hours, then any technical inquiry will be illegal and pointless. No technical tests can sanitize an illegality.
I therefore urgently request that you order the immediate return of my fridge without any further delay. Accordingly, I humbly request that you order Ideal Appliances Ltd (Mika Appliances) to:
- Return my fridge within forty-eight (48) hours, or
- Provide a genuine brand-new replacement of the same model.
In the alternative: If both KEBS and CAK do not wish to exercise your legal duty as regulators, then I respectfully request KEBS to put this refusal in writing, just as CAK has already done. That way, I can personally let this matter off my chest and move on peacefully, instead of continuing to stress myself seeking help that regulators are unwilling to provide. As a consumer, I will then prioritise my family’s welfare and begin saving for a new fridge, because peace is more important and priceless
