Should an incident occur prior to, during, or following a journey booked through inDrive, the mobility company accepts zero legal accountability toward either passengers or motorists. This sweeping disclaimer forms the foundation of the platform’s Terms of Use, an agreement every user must accept before accessing the service.
Essentially, whether a trip results in property theft, physical harm, trauma, or fatality, the organization’s policies explicitly attempt to insulate it from all legal repercussions.
Within Section 11 of the user contract, under the heading concerning platform liability, inDrive spells out its broad immunity. The clause states that, to the fullest degree permitted under applicable statutes, the firm cannot be held responsible for any direct, collateral, financial, or punitive damages. This encompasses everything from personal bodily harm and mental anguish to lost income or misplaced possessions arising from the use of the platform or interactions between drivers and riders.
The company further distances itself under its third-party service terms, clarifying that its relationship with users does not constitute an agency, partnership, joint venture, or employment arrangement. The clause insists that inDrive will not arbitrate disagreements among users, mandating that customers and drivers waive any right to bring legal actions against the brand for platform-related conflicts.
Moreover, the agreement features an extensive indemnity requirement. Under this provision, users must defend and shield inDrive, including its staff and affiliates, from financial losses or legal expenses—covering even the company’s attorney fees—should a dispute or regulatory infraction trigger litigation.
Legal analyst Tobi Adebowale, an attorney based in the UK, highlighted that inDrive has essentially cast itself purely as an intermediary while shifting all exposure onto the vehicle operators. He pointed out that if a traveler initiates legal action against both inDrive and a driver, the driver is obligated under the contract to absorb inDrive’s legal expenditures. Adebowale noted that typical commercial agreements usually acknowledge accountability for the operator’s own fraudulent acts or direct negligence, an inclusion notably absent from inDrive’s terms.
This stance diverges sharply from competing platforms like Bolt. Bolt’s user guidelines set an explicit liability ceiling of N700,000 for specific financial or operational damages and openly shoulder responsibility in instances where corporate negligence causes physical trauma or loss of life. Adebowale described Bolt’s setup as much more aligned with standard market expectations, contrasting it with inDrive’s unusually rigid and one-sided framework.
Nevertheless, a company’s contractual disclaimer does not automatically protect it in a courtroom. The provisions remain subject to statutory limitations under Nigerian law, which permits the judiciary to intervene when agreements impose unreasonable burdens.
Adebowale highlighted that the 2018 Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) shields consumers from predatory and unbalanced contractual conditions. Domestic courts routinely prevent corporations from evading consequences for gross negligence or fraudulent behavior, particularly when dealing with take-it-or-leave-it adhesion contracts. In cases involving severe harm or death where the platform shares blame, courts are unlikely to validate blanket indemnity protections.
While inDrive’s contract seeks to dodge responsibility unless compelled by statutory order, motorists and riders still retain enforceable rights. Adebowale recommended that affected parties seek professional legal advice rather than assuming they have no path to redress.
At the time of writing, inDrive had not provided a response to inquiries seeking clarification on these policies.
