By 
A Nairobi court has ruled in favor of Safaricom, dismissing a lawsuit filed by Davidson Ivusa, a Kenyan innovator who accused the telecom giant of copying his idea for the “Reverse Call” feature. The ruling, delivered on February 27, 2025, ends a three-year legal battle, raising broader concerns about the protection of unsolicited ideas in Kenya’s tech ecosystem.
Ivusa’s Allegations and Legal Claims
Ivusa claimed that he pitched a proposal titled “Jichomoe” to Safaricom in 2010, outlining a feature that would enable users to make calls without airtime. He argued that Safaricom delayed implementing the idea and later launched it under a different name in April 2019, without his consent or involvement.
The lawsuit accused Safaricom of breach of trust, passing off, and loss of income, alleging that the telco unfairly benefited from his concept.
Safaricom’s Defense and Court’s Ruling
Safaricom refuted the claims, maintaining that the “Reverse Call” service was independently developed to meet a common consumer need—enabling calls without sufficient airtime.
Justice Mugambi ruled that Ivusa’s idea was shared voluntarily, without a binding confidentiality agreement or fiduciary duty on Safaricom’s part.
“The concept was sent unsolicited, and there was no evidence that the defendant undertook to hold it in trust or act in a fiduciary capacity.” – Justice Mugambi
The court also rejected Ivusa’s request for a constructive trust, a legal remedy for unjust enrichment, ruling that he failed to establish a valid claim.
No Copyright Infringement or Passing Off
Addressing copyright concerns, the court clarified the distinction between protecting an idea versus its execution. Justice Mugambi cited both Kenyan case law and global intellectual property standards, emphasizing:
“Copyright law protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.”
Ivusa failed to present technical documentation such as source code, diagrams, or prototypes, submitting only a concept note via email—insufficient to prove ownership of a unique implementation.
Additionally, the court dismissed the claim of passing off, ruling that Ivusa did not establish that “Jichomoe” had built any goodwill or market recognition before Safaricom’s launch.
“There was no proof that consumers or industry stakeholders associated Safaricom’s Reverse Call feature with ‘Jichomoe’.”
Implications for Innovation and Idea Protection
This ruling highlights the legal complexities surrounding unsolicited pitches and corporate adoption of similar concepts. In markets like Kenya, where startups frequently present ideas to dominant players, the case underscores the importance of securing intellectual property protection before sharing innovations with potential industry partners.
Comments