Safaricom Wins High Court Ruling, Sh1.1 Billion M-Pesa
A software developer, Wanjohi, who claimed Safaricom used his ideas to develop the M-Pesa Super App and M-Pesa Business App, has lost a Sh1.1 billion arbitration award after the High Court ruled there was no signed contract. Wanjohi, through his firm Popote Innovations, had initially been awarded the payout in November last year after an arbitrator concluded that Safaricom had used his firm’s concepts to develop both applications.
Safaricom immediately challenged the award, arguing that the payout was based on a fictitious claim and an unexecuted agreement. The High Court upheld Safaricom’s position, emphasizing that without a signed contract, there was no binding obligation. Legal analysts in Nairobi stress that arbitration awards cannot replace formal agreements in intellectual property disputes, especially in high-value fintech projects where billions of shillings are at stake.
Popote Innovations argued that their ideas were central to the development of the M-Pesa applications. The court, however, clarified that conceptual contributions alone do not generate enforceable rights under Kenyan law. “Even if a concept shapes the final product, formal contracts are essential for any financial claim,” explained a Nairobi-based intellectual property lawyer.
How M-Pesa Became Kenya’s Fintech Leader
The legal arguments hinged on whether an arbitration award could override the absence of a formal contract. Arbitration in Kenya is often used to settle disputes without lengthy court procedures, but the courts have repeatedly held that an award cannot create a new contractual obligation where none existed. Safaricom’s defense highlighted that Wanjohi had no signed agreement granting intellectual property rights or compensation for the development ideas.
In South Africa, a 2018 Vodacom dispute involving mobile payment innovations similarly saw courts side with the company when a developer attempted to claim royalties without a signed licensing agreement. Likewise, in the United Kingdom, a 2020 case between Barclays and TechSource over app development contributions resulted in the court ruling that unpaid royalties could not be awarded without formal contracts. The High Court’s decision in Nairobi reflects this principle, demonstrating that executed agreements are essential for enforceable claims in fintech.
Safaricom’s internal processes also came under scrutiny. Corporate governance procedures in tech firms emphasize that legal review of IP agreements and documented collaboration contracts are necessary to prevent potential disputes. Analysts note that large companies in Kenya, including Safaricom, adopt stringent documentation practices precisely to avoid cases like Wanjohi’s, where arbitration decisions alone cannot secure payouts.
For local startups, the case underscores the importance of ensuring that all intellectual property agreements are signed, clear, and enforceable. Entrepreneurs seeking partnerships with established firms must now prioritize contractual clarity before sharing proprietary ideas. Without this legal safeguard, even substantial conceptual contributions may not translate into financial awards.
The High Court ruling also offers a practical lesson for legal practitioners and business advisors in Kenya. Ensuring that contracts explicitly define ownership rights, royalty structures, and usage of technology is essential for reducing litigation risk. Wanjohi’s case illustrates how the absence of these safeguards can leave innovators exposed, even when their work is recognized as valuable by arbitrators.
Kenyan fintech is growing rapidly, with M-Pesa being a key driver of digital financial services. The case has heightened awareness among startups that innovation alone is insufficient to claim financial compensation. Legal enforceability through contracts is now as important as the technical contribution itself.
Analysts note that the ruling could influence how future intellectual property disputes in Kenya are handled, particularly in technology and digital finance. Startups are likely to adopt stricter contractual protocols, defining all aspects of collaboration and IP usage before entering agreements with larger corporations. Safaricom’s approach demonstrates that meticulous legal documentation can prevent disputes from escalating into multi-billion-shilling claims.
Wanjohi’s claim was initially recognized by arbitration, which demonstrates that courts and arbitrators can acknowledge the value of contributions. However, without formal contracts, such recognition is insufficient to secure payment. Kenyan innovators are now more aware that procedural and contractual safeguards are critical when negotiating with established firms, reinforcing the principle that intellectual property rights must be backed by legally enforceable agreements.
Beyond the legal implications, the case highlights the balance between innovation and corporate governance. Safaricom’s defense shows how structured oversight, compliance with contractual law, and adherence to IP regulations protect company assets and provide clarity in financial obligations. Startups can use this case as guidance to implement their own documentation and IP management practices when engaging with larger organizations.
Ultimately, the Sh1.1 billion arbitration award being overturned serves as a reminder to Kenyan innovators that recognition alone is not sufficient. Documentation, legal review, and formal contracts are fundamental to transforming ideas into enforceable claims. For the rapidly evolving Kenyan fintech ecosystem, this ruling reinforces the need for robust legal frameworks to support and protect innovation.
“Even if a concept shapes the final product, formal contracts are essential for any financial claim.”
This article was prepared by the Ramsey Focus Analysis Desk, based on verified reports, independent analysis, and insights to ensure balanced coverage.
