Safaricom Shop at Central Business District(CBD)./PHOTO BY S.A.N.


Mobile operator Safaricom has suffered a major blow after the High Court declined to suspend the hearing of a petition filed by a Kenyan who has sued the telco in a case over intellectual property.

Justice Josephine Mong’are dismissed the application by Safaricom, seeking the suspension of the petition filed by Peter Muoki, pending appeal against the court’s decision directing the company to furnish him with a number of documents he intends to use in the case.

The judge had in June directed Safaricom to furnish the petitioner with a letter it sent to Huawei Technologies (Kenya) Company Limited, instructing the latter to propose a solution for Parent Child Control product functionality under M-PESA platform.

Also to be produced are documents relating to M-pesa parents child control and an application by Safaricom to Central Bank of Kenya seeking approval.

“In conclusion, I find and hold that the application by the Safaricom PLc and Huawei Technologies (Kenya) company ltd has no merit and is hereby dismissed,” ruled Justice Mongare.

Justice Mongare ruled that she was not persuaded that Safaricom has an arguable appeal with grounds that merit serious judicial consideration.

“I find and hold that Safaricom PLc is not deserving of the leave sought to file an appeal against the order of this court of 26th June 2023,” observed the judge.

The court had ordered Safaricom and Huawei Technologies Kenya to produce certified copies of an application by Safaricom to CBK, seeking approval of MPESA-Child Control product and MPESA Parent Child Control product/functionality approval.

The court had further ordered the company to produce original emails from Dennis Ndege Maari addressed to Caroline Njagua, Peter Mativo, Mazhisheng dated 2020.9.21 1508 hours. and original emails from Calimiao to Peter Mativo, Dennis Ndege Maari sent on 22 September 2020 1417 hours.

The documents were to be produced in court within fourteen days of the ruling, failure to which the Safaricom’s statement of defence would be struck out with costs.

Safaricom was aggrieved by the orders and sought to stay the ruling and the proceedings, pending appeal.

Muoki opposed the application and submitted that the documents sought are key and necessary in allowing them to canvass and present their case against Safaricom PLc and Huawei Technologies (Kenya) ltd.

He further said Safaricom did not demonstrate what kind of loss they shall suffer if application is disallowed.

Muoki and Beluga ltd further argued that the intended appeal is frivolous and an attempt to delay the matter further as Safaricom PLc is not interested in having the matter finalized.