Imagine this: after years of innovation, investment, and brand-building, you finally win an arbitration award worth KSh 1.1 billion for infringement of your intellectual property. It feels like justice, until the victory slips through your fingers on appeal, not because your idea wasn’t original, not because the infringement didn’t occur, but because of one technicality: a missing signature.
That is the unforgiving world of IP law, where ownership is not about who created first, but who can prove, register, and protect their rights with precision.
The case Safaricom PLC v Popote Innovations Ltd (2025) highlights a fundamental lesson for innovators and IP owners: in technology and creative industries, ideas alone aren’t enough; ownership, rights, and remedies hinge on properly executed agreements and formal recognition of IP.
Background: The Partnership and the Dispute
In 2018, Safaricom and Popote Pay explored a partnership to build a customized payment solution, with a drafted Partnership Agreement meant to guide development, launch, and revenue sharing. Although the document contained key commercial and IP terms, including an arbitration clause, Safaricom never signed it.
Popote Pay nonetheless delivered the “Popote Pay Solution,” while Safaricom later opted not to launch the product and only reimbursed development costs under a separate 2020 Settlement Agreement.
Tensions rose in 2021 when Safaricom released the M-Pesa App and Business App, which Popote Pay believed mirrored features of the joint concept. Relying on the unsigned agreement, Popote initiated arbitration and won a KSh 1.1 billion award.
But when Safaricom challenged the award, the High Court found that, without an executed agreement and therefore no binding arbitration clause, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The award was set aside entirely, turning the absence of a single signature into the decisive factor of the case.
What Would Have IP Protection Looked Like in This Scenario?
- Copyright registration for the software creates a formal record of authorship and ownership.
- An NDA signed before sharing the concept, architecture, or demo would legally make any later similarity between apps a contractual breach, even without a full partnership agreement.
- An executed contract acknowledging the software as Popote’s proprietary asset would have created undisputed ownership.