Safaricom Limited v Transcend Media Group [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Commercial & Tax Division
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Justice F. Tuiyott
Judgment Date
June 15, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Discover the key insights and legal principles from the Safaricom Limited v Transcend Media Group [2020] eKLR case, highlighting the implications for media law and corporate accountability in Kenya.

Case Brief: Safaricom Limited v Transcend Media Group [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Safaricom Limited v. Transcend Media Group
- Case Number: HCCC No. 228 of 2016
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Commercial & Tax Division
- Date Delivered: 15th June 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Justice F. Tuiyott
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve the following legal issues:
1. Did the letter of 18th April 2016 to Vodafone amount to a publication to a third party?
2. Are the contents of that letter false and malicious?
3. Is the defence of privilege available to Transcend in respect to the letter?
4. Are the contents of the notice dated 27th May 2016 published by Transcend false and actuated by malice?
5. If liability upon Transcend arises from both or one of the above, what quantum of damages is appropriate?
6. Was Transcend engaged in a public smear campaign to malign Safaricom, its directors, and employees?
7. If so, was the intention to cause pecuniary damage to Safaricom in the implementation of the Blaze Brand promotion?
8. If the answer to (f) and (g) are in the affirmative, what pecuniary loss, if any, has Safaricom suffered?
9. Is Safaricom the author of the works contained in the Agency brief?
10. If so, did Transcend infringe upon the proprietary rights of Safaricom?
11. Is Safaricom entitled to an order for taking of accounts?
12. What is the appropriate order on costs?

3. Facts of the Case:
The case arises from a dispute between Safaricom Limited, the leading mobile phone operator in Kenya, and Transcend Media Group, an advertising agency. Safaricom developed a strategy targeting youth subscribers and sought bids for the implementation of the Blaze Brand promotion. Transcend participated in the bidding process but lost to Saracen Media Limited. Following the award of the contract to Saracen, Transcend published a letter to Vodafone and an advertisement in the Daily Nation, claiming irregularities in the tender process and alleging corruption involving Safaricom. Safaricom contended that Transcend's statements were false, malicious, and intended to harm its business interests.

4. Procedural History:
Safaricom filed a suit against Transcend, asserting claims of malicious falsehood, tort of occasioning loss by unlawful means, and copyright infringement. Transcend denied the allegations, arguing that the tender process was flawed and that it had been wrongfully excluded from the award. The court heard testimonies from both parties and evaluated the evidence presented, including the letters and advertisements published by Transcend.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the tort of malicious falsehood, which requires proof of publication of false statements with malice that caused damage. Additionally, the elements of the tort of occasioning loss by unlawful means were examined, along with copyright law provisions under the Copyright Act (2001).

- Case Law: The court referenced prior cases, including Kings Wear Limited v. Registered Trustees of the Sisters of Mercy, which established the criteria for malicious falsehood. The court also noted the importance of proving the falsity of statements in such claims.

- Application: The court found that while some statements in Transcend's communications were indeed false, only a small portion constituted malicious falsehood. The court ruled that Transcend had acted recklessly in publishing statements without verifying their truthfulness, demonstrating malice. However, Safaricom failed to establish a claim for occasioning loss by unlawful means and copyright infringement, as it could not prove ownership of the copyrights in question.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of Safaricom regarding the malicious falsehood, awarding Kshs. 2,000,000 in damages. However, it dismissed the claims for occasioning loss by unlawful means and copyright infringement, concluding that Safaricom did not sufficiently demonstrate damages or ownership of the copyright.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the judgment.

8. Summary:
The case highlights the complexities of corporate disputes involving allegations of falsehood and copyright infringement. The court's ruling emphasized the importance of verifying claims before publication, particularly in competitive commercial environments. The outcome serves as a cautionary tale for businesses regarding the potential legal repercussions of public statements that could harm competitors.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Safaricom-Limited-v-Transcend-Media-Group-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1871_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries