ABSTRACT

The rapid growth of the digital economy in Cameroon has transformed the way consumers engage in commercial transactions through online marketplaces, mobile money services, and other digital platforms. While these innovations have increased convenience, accessibility, and economic participation, they have also exposed consumers to significant risks, including online fraud, non-delivery of goods, misleading advertisements, cybercrime, and violations of personal data privacy. Against this backdrop, this study critically examines consumer protection in the digital economy of Cameroon, with particular focus on the challenges of online transactions and data privacy. ts. In addition, unstructured interviews were conducted with selected stakeholders to obtain practical insights into the effectiveness of existing regulatory measures. The findings reveal that Cameroon has established a relatively comprehensive legal and institutional framework for regulating electronic commerce, cyber security, and consumer protection. We recommend the enactment and effective enforcement of a comprehensive data protection regime, accompanied by strengthened institutional coordination, enhanced consumer awareness programmes, and the establishment of accessible online dispute resolution mechanisms to ensure effective protection of consumers in Cameroon’s digital economy.

CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Commerce in its traditional definition up until late 1990s has been based on the ‘physical mode’ of operation whereby customers used to conduct trade by means of visiting the physical establishments where transactions of placing their orders, receiving the goods and paying for them took place.[1] The changes to the way transactions occurred in the late 1990s has seen the development of internet and its further wide-ranging and far-reaching expansion across the globe which results in the development of Electronic Commerce (E-commerce) impacting individual, business entities and national economies[2].

The Industrial revolution brought profound changes in England between 1760 to1840 and 1870 to 1914 in socio-economic and political life in general.[3] The mass production of consumer durables such as bicycles, furniture and sewing machines, coupled with increased economic power of consumers led to a massive increase in commercial activity.[4]

This was further fueled by the growth in the provision of credit and the continued increase in prosperity during the twentieth century.[5] Coupled with the rise of welfare philosophies during the period after the Second World War, this led to a recognition that the existing contractual basis for the analysis of commercial activity, with the assumption of equality of bargaining power and doctrines of freedom and sanctity of contract, were inadequate to deal with the problems created by the increase in consumption and the increasing complexity of goods and sophistication of sales techniques.[6] The Courts developed the principles of negligence to deal with problems caused by defective goods[7]and Parliament legislated, inter alia, to regulate the supply of credit.[8]

Evidence shows, however, that consumer protection began long before the forgone account. Professor Afeisimi Dominic Badaiki ( a Nigerian professor whose focus is consumer protection law)[9] traces its origin to the Biblical Old Testament[10] injunction to builders and architects of old to exercise caution in the design and construction of their products so that injury is not caused to men. This may suggest that consumer protection is as old, or almost as old as human existence. Prosser[11] postulates that English Criminal Statutes imposing penalties upon marketers of corrupt food and drinks existed long ago. Indeed, it has been pointed out that consumer protection was a major legislative preoccupation throughout the nineteenth century and it was not by any means confined purely to the prevention of fraud. Since fraud was often difficult to prove, it was common for Parliament to legislate on the principles of preventing modes of commercial behavior which facilitated fraud.[12] Even so, a general principle recognized at common law was that those who failed to show the degree of skill prevailing in their trade or calling were subject to liability in an action on the case (negligence). Therefore, case law and statute operated alongside each other to protect the interests of consumers. Again, while Statute Law regulated marketplace transactions by imposing criminal sanctions, case law regulated it by applying civil remedies.[13]

An important question during this era related to the basis of liability. Historical data points to a transition in the use of the legal concepts of warranty, negligence and strict liability. The action for breach of warranty was originally an action in tort to compensate a buyer who had been deceived by the seller’s false description of goods.[14] By 1778, a plaintiff could rely on a contract for a warranty action[15]even though this was a matter of procedural convenience. It was in 1815 that the Court first imposed an implied warranty of merchantability for the sale of twelve bags of “waste silk” in the case of Gardiner v Gray.[16] By 1893, the codification of implied warranties was effected in the Sale of Goods Act of that year.

The dominant philosophy at this time was rugged individualism expressed in the caveat emptor (buyers beware) principle. Eminently suited to the classical laissez-faire doctrine of 18th and 19th century capitalism, caveat emptor found justification. As discussed earlier, however, the victim of unprincipled salesmanship did not always go without a remedy, so long as he was able to establish that the goods were faulty or worthless or because the seller had broken an express promise a warranty, or was guilty of fraud.[17] The Courts’ reliance on the concepts of fraud and express warranty was consequently to mitigate the harshness of caveat emptor.

The use of the warranty concept which was first founded in tort and later in contract was not without difficulties. For instance, contractual relations and intent became the yardsticks for protecting the consumer.[18] It was not enough that once a case of warranty was made out in a contract, a verdict could be obtained. The rule extended so much so that even tort relations were now being interpreted in the context of contractual relations. For example, no successful action in negligence could be obtained in the absence of privity of contract.[19] In the sphere of solicitor liability, the rule was that a solicitor was only liable for tort arising from breach of contract, which was later assimilated for all practical purposes with liability for breach of contract.[20]

The test of liability was therefore largely contractual. This meant that consumer protection was tied to the legalistic concepts of freedom, sanctity and privity. This obviously undermined the consumer as he was erroneously placed on the same pedestal in terms of bargaining power with the producer.[21] Moreover, the transiting of the warranty concept between contract and tort had its strain in the area of damages. Treating a warranty as contractual meant that it had to be equated to a promise.[22] This implied that the consumer had to be allowed the contractual measure of damages, to wit: the difference between the value of the article sold and the value it would have had if it had answered to the warranty.[23] However, because of the tie with tort, damages for consequential loss were also awarded for breach of warranty of quality especially against retailers.[24]

An important distinction was thus lost (measure of damage), that it is one thing to hold a seller liable to restore the price that a buyer has over-paid (a contractual measure of damages); it is quite another thing to impose liability on a seller (who may not be the maker of the goods) for injuries caused to the buyer by the goods (tort damages). If it be taken that a warranty is not a promise at all, then it becomes clear that liability for consequential damage is a pure imposition of law (strict liability). Although this is justifiable on grounds of social policy outside the framework of contract, the point remains that any association of strict liability with doctrines of warranty merely obscures its real nature.[25]

An effect of these historical antecedents is that in modern legal thinking, the Courts have readily held that the existence of a contractual relationship would not preclude tortious duties arising between the parties, and a plaintiff could opt for the more advantageous action. It follows that there can be concurrent liability in contract and tort.[26] The relevance here lies in the issue of time limitation as to when a cause of action can be brought. In Cartledge v E. Jopling & Sons Ltd.[27]it was held that an action for the breach of contract accrues at the time of breach, but in tort, it accrues upon the occurrence of the damage.[28]

The protection of the consumer is of prime importance in electronic Commerce. For any contract to be valid there is the need for pre-contractual negotiations to take place such as offer, acceptance and contractual terms. In online transactions, these are conveyed and stored electronically. The legal problems that are considered in e-commerce are that of authenticity and integrity of the information gotten from the internet when concluding contracts through electronic means. Questions such as:

 “can the electronic medium be trusted? Does it originate from the real person with whom you are dealing with? Can the message be relied upon? How secure is it given that electronic documents can easily be frauded or manipulated? Is the message the same as the one sent from origin? What is the legal status of an electronic document? And can it be enforceable? Do electronic messages and electronic signatures meet the legal requirements of writing and signature and above all what is the legal status of an electronically signed message?”[29]

As such electronic commerce is faced with serious problems of confidentiality, and the integrity of electronic signatures for the validity of transactions and enforceability of contracts. Public key cryptography has been invented with the aim of securing transactions in electronic commerce. Digital signatures and certificates have come up with the aim of authenticating information sent by internet. The need to address such legal issues is urgent. The work as such tries to find out the legal issues and challenges that come up with the practice of   electronic commerce and how such issues and challenges can be handled to promote security and integrity in Ecommerce in the Cameroonian context.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The protection of consumers in the digital economy of Cameroon has become a growing legal and policy concern due to the rapid expansion of online transactions, mobile money services, and digital platforms such as Jumia and local e-commerce businesses. Although Cameroon has established a legal framework through laws such as Law No. 2011/012 of 6 May 2011 on consumer protection and Law No. 2010/021 of 21 December 2010 on electronic commerce, which recognizes electronic contracts and transactions, consumers still face significant challenges in practice, including online fraud, non-delivery of goods, misleading product information, and weak complaint mechanisms.[30] In cities like Douala and Buea, many users of mobile money and online marketplaces report cases of fake sellers, payment without delivery, or poor-quality goods, reflecting gaps between law and enforcement.[31] Furthermore, the increasing collection and processing of personal data by telecom operators, fintech services, and online platforms has raised serious data privacy concerns, especially where users’ consent is unclear or data is shared without adequate safeguards.[32] As a result, despite the existence of legal provisions, consumer protection in Cameroon’s digital economy continues to face practical difficulties in ensuring safe online transactions and effective data privacy protection.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study is guided by the following questions

1.3.1 General Research Question

How effective is the existing regulatory framework in protecting consumers in Cameroon’s digital economy?

1.3.2 Specific Research Question

• What are the concepts and nature of online transactions and data privacy in Cameroon?
• What are the legal, institutional and policy framework regulating online transactions and data privacy in the digital economy of Cameroon?
• To what extend are consumer protected in online transactions and data privacy in the digital economy of Cameroon?
• What policy recommendations can improve consumer protection in online transaction and data privacy in the digital economy of Cameroon?

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

1.4.1 General Objective

• To critically examine the effectiveness of the regulatory framework governing the protection of consumers privacy  in Cameroon’s digital economy.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives.

• To examine the concepts and nature of online transactions and data privacy in Cameroon.
• To evaluate the legal and institutional and policy frameworks regulating consumers in online transactions and data privacy in the digital economy of  in Cameroon.
• To investigate the effectiveness of consumer protection in online transaction and data privacy in the digital economy of Cameroon.
• To make policy recommendations that can improve the protection of consumers in online transactions and data privacy in Cameroon.

[1] Boma, A. L.The principles of consumer protection law’. 2021, P. 15

[2] Ologunebi O, Taiwo B. ‘‘Digital platforms and consumer decision-making ‘’. Journal of Consumer Behaviour.31(2): 2024 p. 45-60.

[3] Robert Bradgate. Commercial Law, 3^rd edition. 2005,P.4.

[4] Ibid.

[5]Boma Opcit.

[6]Ibid. p.66

[7] Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C 562.

[8] See the English Money Lenders Act 1927 and the Hire-Purchase Act 1938.

[9] Badaiki, A. D. Standard form contracts and consumer protection law. Malthouse Press,1999,p 44.

[10] Deuteronomy 22:8

[11] W.L. Prosser, “The Assault Upon the Citadel” Yale Law Journal (L.J.),1966, 1099 at 1103.

[12]Atiyah, The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (Oxford, 1979) P. 545.

[13] These will cover damages and equitable measures such as injunction and specific performance.

[14] Ibid

[15]Stuarts v Wilkins (1778) 99 Eng. Rep. 15.

[16] (1815) 171 English Report (Eng. Rep.) 46.

[17] Borrie and Diamond, op cit 15.

[18] Ibid

[19] Winterbottom v Wright (1842) 152 Eng. Rep. at 402.

[20] J.M. Kaye, The Liability of Solicitors in Tort  LQR 1984 , pp. 685-686.

[21] Ibid

[22] Boma, A. L. opcit.

[23] Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728.

[24] Ibid

[25] Ibid at pp. 156-157 and Prosser, op cit at pp. 1127-1133.

[26] Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC [1972] 1 Q.B. 373.

[27] [1963] AC 758.

[28] Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728.

[29] Ibid (2021)

[30] Law No. 2011/012 of 6 May 2011 Relating to Consumer Protection in Cameroon, Art. 1; Law No. 2010/021 of 21 December 2010 on Electronic Commerce in Cameroon, Section 2.

[31] Achih Mahamadou Jallo, “The Challenges to the Protection of Consumers in E-Commerce Transaction in Cameroon” (2024) SSRN Electronic Journal, Paper No. 5776745, 1.

[32] Data Protection Overview in Cameroon,” LexAfrica