Safaricom PLC is facing renewed legal pressure after the High Court declined to strike out a cross-appeal filed by fintech firm Kibo Capital Group in an ongoing intellectual property dispute over the M-PESA Bill Manager.
- •The ruling delivered by Justice Njoroge Benjamin, allows Kibo to proceed with its infringement claims despite having filed its cross-appeal more than a year after the initial judgment by the Industrial Property Tribunal.
- •Safaricom claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain such a delayed filing but the fintech countered that while Kenya’s civil rules outline how cross-appeals should be made, they do not impose a firm deadline.
- •The judge cited that the absence of statutory timelines for cross-appeals meant that Kibo’s filing could still stand—so long as it was made within a reasonable period and caused no prejudice to the other party.
“The Court is not persuaded that it should strike out the Notice of Cross Appeal as no prejudice to the Appellant has been shown… Had the Cross Appeal been filed after directions had been given, that would have been outside the purview of what is a reasonable time period. For now, the Court holds that it was still within reasonable time,” Justice Njoroge ruled.
At the center of the conflict is the M-PESA Bill Manager, a tool launched by Safaricom to help businesses automate billing, issue digital receipts, track payments, and manage invoices within the M-PESA platform. The feature has been widely adopted by SMEs, landlords, schools, and NGOs across Kenya and solidifies M-PESA’s dominance in mobile financial services.
Kibo Capital alleges that the Bill Manager unlawfully incorporates features from an e-receipting utility model it registered in 2017 with the Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI). According to the company, it introduced the concept to Safaricom in a 2017 pitch meeting as part of early partnership discussions. Talks allegedly broke down without an agreement, only for Safaricom to later roll out a system Kibo claims mirrors its protected innovation.
Safaricom has firmly denied these allegations, arguing that the Bill Manager was independently developed during the 2014–2015 financial year, predating Kibo’s registration. The company also points to the existence of similar solutions globally, contending that Kibo’s claims rest on generic features common to many digital billing systems.
The Industrial Property Tribunal sided with Safaricom in 2022, dismissing both Kibo’s infringement case and Safaricom’s counterclaim to revoke the utility model. Safaricom appealed the decision shortly after.
Kibo, however, waited over a year to lodge its own cross-appeal, triggering the latest legal battle over timelines. With the cross-appeal now admitted, the court will hear both parties’ grievances: Safaricom seeking to annul Kibo’s IP rights, and Kibo asserting infringement of those same rights.
Kibo’s claims, if upheld, could result in Safaricom facing fines, forced product changes, or even suspension of the Bill Manager. For a company that processes billions of shillings in mobile payments daily, the reputational and operational stakes are high.
