The High Court at Nairobi’s Milimani Commercial Courts rejected a case brought forth by Davidson Ivusa against Safaricom Limited.
Ivusa alleged that Safaricom took his groundbreaking “Jichomoe” idea, claiming this was the inspiration behind their popular Reverse Call Feature.
The ruling, issued by Judge F.G. Mugambi on February 27, 2025, concluded a legal dispute that started in April 2021.
The lawsuit filed by the plaintiff against Safaricom
Davidson Ivusa, the claimant, initiated lawsuit number Civil Case E562 of 2021 on April 20, 2021. He sought various forms of relief against Safaricom, such as an order to prevent the firm from utilizing or promoting its Reverse Call service. Additionally, he requested compensation for breaches of confidence, misrepresentation, and lost commercial prospects.
Ivusa asserted that he presented a submission to Safaricom on May 10, 2010, under the title “Jichomoe.” He explained this as an answer designed to help Safaricom subscribers place calls irrespective of their economic limitations.
He claimed that the firm maintained his concept under examination for an extended period, continually assuring him of their consideration, before eventually debuting a remarkably comparable feature, the Safaricom Reverse Call Service, on June 18, 2019, without including or consulting him.
Ivusa contended that this was a violation of trust and charged Safaricom with appropriating his idea and presenting it as their own creation.
Safaricom’s defense
In their defense statement submitted on January 17, 2022, Safaricom refuted Ivusa’s claims, stating that its Reverse Call Service was a distinct invention created in June 2018 and introduced on April 26, 2019.
The firm stated that the service was created to cater to the requirements of subscribers who couldn’t make calls because they lacked sufficient airtime. It enabled them to start reverse calls using a specific code.
The telecoms company highlighted that reverse call technology wasn’t new, having preceded Ivusa’s suggestion and being present in different formats long before mobile communications were common.
Safaricom emphasized notable distinctions between its offering and Jichomoe: whereas the Reverse Call Service only covers voice calls, Jichomoe includes voice calls, text messaging, and mobile internet. It operates as an installed module within handsets instead of being a network-based feature.
What was the outcome of the lawsuit involving Safaricom?
Judge Mugambi’s ruling tackled three main points: whether Safaricom violated a trust, if it had misappropriated Ivusa’s concept, and whether Ivusa was justified in seeking the remedies proposed.
The court discovered no proof of a clear pact or shared comprehension between the involved parties. It highlighted that Ivusa’s presentation of the Jichomoe idea was unrequested, with nothing suggesting that Safaricom consented to keep it confidential or utilize it for his advantage.
Regarding the allegation of passing off, where one entity falsely presents another’s goods as their own, the court necessitated that Ivusa demonstrate that Jichomoe possessed goodwill and brand recognition. Additionally, Ivusa needed to show that Safaricom’s services were misleading about their source and that this misrepresentation caused damage to Ivusa.
Mugambi stated that Ivusa did not provide any proof of Jichomoe’s market position, brand awareness, or financial harm resulting from Safaricom’s activities.
Even though Ivusa didn’t directly accuse anyone of copyright infringement, the court examined whether his intellectual property had been violated. According to Kenya’s Copyright Act, software receives protection as a form of literary work; however, this law safeguards only the expression of an idea rather than the concept itself.
The court determined that since Jichomoe did not provide concrete details like source code or prototypes, Ivusa was unable to demonstrate that Safaricom had replicated his distinctive creation instead of separately devising a comparable idea.
Justice Mugambi dismissed the suit with costs awarded to Safaricom after finding no merit with the lawsuits claims.