Really?
I think that transcript essentially proves that it wasn't Google. Everything he says about the program is completely wrong. I'll just pick out the things that are indisputably wrong, there is more that I would argue is wrong but may be viewed differently by others. You've already mentioned the false information about Mocality that the caller uses, so I don't need to repeat that.
"[The domain will be] ww.your business.CO.KE"
No, it will be www.your business.kbo.co.ke. This is something very important, you get a subdomain of Google's Kenyan Business Online site kbo.co.ke.
"Twenty one days. We’re going to develop the website within twenty one days"
No. Google's KBO does not develop the websites themselves, they provide a "Business Sitebuilder tool" that allows you to do it yourself.
"XXXXX dot XXXXX at gmail dot com."
This should be @google.com not @gmail.com.
"and also we go on facebook. People who log into facebook can see the clothes you are selling."
No. Google's KBO does not do anything with Facebook.
"When someone is on facebook, they’ll see your ad there."
Again, no. Google is not giving you advertising space on Facebook.
"Ok, there’s a small fee for hosting of Ksh. 200 per month. [...] Only that for hosting. You know hosting is different from developing."
No, there is no hosting fee. The only possible fee is an optional one if you want your own domain and it isn't 200 per month.
There's more but I think that should give you the general idea. Given just this transcript and comparing it to the details of Google's program at kbo.co.ke I would say that this caller is definitely not working for Google but is rather a scammer. In fact, in this transcript the caller basically walks through the steps needed to use the Business Sitebuilder tool. This explains how the business who didn't agree to the thing would end up with a site anyway, the scammer did it while on the phone.
Now, I haven't considered the IP logs, but my best guess for that is that it is coming from Google Translate as discussed elsewhere.
Edit: I should clarify. I am not certain that Google was not involved with this, it's more that I am convinced that that particular caller wasn't working for Google. While I am unconvinced that these callers worked for Google, there is some rather damning evidence.