On February 27, 2025, a Nairobi court dismissed a lawsuit by Kenyan innovator Davidson Ivusa, who accused telecom giant Safaricom of stealing his “Jichomoe” concept for its “Reverse Call” feature. The ruling, detailed in court documents obtained by TechCabal, ends a three-year legal saga and underscores a harsh reality for inventors: ideas alone don’t win in court. With Safaricom’s service—launched in 2019—safe, the decision raises thorny questions about how Kenya’s tech giants handle unsolicited pitches from startups and innovators. Here’s what went down and why it matters.
The Claim: A Stolen Idea?
Ivusa’s case hinged on a 2010 pitch to Safaricom for “Jichomoe,” a service letting users call without airtime by shifting costs to recipients—eerily similar to Safaricom’s “Reverse Call,” rolled out nine years later. He alleged Safaricom sat on his idea, then launched it without credit or compensation, seeking damages for breach of trust, passing off, and lost income. “I gave them the blueprint,” Ivusa told TechCabal in 2022, claiming a concept note emailed to Safaricom proved his case.
Safaricom countered that “Reverse Call” was an in-house fix for a universal need—zero-balance calls—and denied any link to Ivusa’s pitch. The telco, with 34 million M-PESA users (prior post), leaned on its market muscle: no deal, no theft.
The Ruling: Ideas vs. Execution
Justice Mugambi’s verdict was clear: no dice. Ivusa’s pitch was “unsolicited,” with no confidentiality agreement or fiduciary duty binding Safaricom. “There was no evidence the defendant undertook to hold it in trust,” Mugambi ruled, rejecting a constructive trust claim. On dishonesty? “The plaintiff hasn’t substantiated it.”
Copyright was the kicker. “Law protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves,” Mugambi said, citing Kenyan and global precedent. Ivusa’s concept note—lacking code, diagrams, or a prototype—didn’t show unique execution. “Without that, it’s hard to prove appropriation,” the judge added. Passing off flopped too: “Jichomoe” had no market goodwill to confuse with “Reverse Call.” X’s @TechCabal summed it up: “Court says Safaricom didn’t steal—just built better.”
Kenya’s Tech IP Dilemma
The case exposes a gray zone in Kenya’s tech scene, where startups like Ivusa’s pitch to giants like Safaricom (91% mobile money share, prior M-PESA post) hoping for partnerships. Without NDAs or patents—costly at $500–$1,000 locally (WIPO)—innovators risk rejection or replication. “It’s a common dispute,” noted @KOTTechTalk on X, “big players can out-execute.” Safaricom’s silence post-ruling fuels debate: did it dodge accountability, or was Ivusa’s claim too thin?
What’s Next for Innovators?
Ivusa’s loss—echoing U.S. cases like Mattel vs. MGA (Bratz dolls)—won’t stop “Reverse Call,” a lifeline for Safaricom’s zero-airtime users. For Kenya’s tech ecosystem, it’s a wake-up call: protect execution, not just ideas. X’s @NairobiTechBit mused: “Next time, code it, patent it, or lose it.” As M-PESA faces Airtel Money’s rise (prior post), Safaricom’s legal win bolsters its innovation cred. For Ivusa? A bitter lesson in a market where giants rarely blink. Watch Q2 for any appeal—or new pitches with tighter armor.
