When Absa Group announced the appointment of former Safaricom executive Sitoyo Lopokoiyit as its Chief Executive for Personal and Private Banking, the move was presented as a strategic coup. Here was a seasoned fintech executive credited with helping shape some of East Africa’s most influential digital financial products. Yet barely weeks into his new role, a Kenyan court delivered a judgment that has placed both his legacy and Absa’s due diligence under intense scrutiny.
At the centre of the storm is a landmark High Court ruling that ordered Safaricom PLC to pay innovator Peter Nthei Muoki and Beluga Limited more than Sh1.4 billion in damages for copyright infringement over a teen-focused mobile wallet concept that eventually evolved into products such as M-PESA Go and the Manage Child Account service. The court also ordered Safaricom to pay an ongoing royalty equivalent to 0.5 percent of M-PESA gross revenue for as long as the disputed functionality remains operational.
The decision has become one of the most consequential intellectual property judgments ever delivered against a Kenyan corporate giant. But beyond the staggering financial implications lies an uncomfortable question: could this entire saga have been avoided?
According to court records, Muoki developed and documented a product known as the M-Teen Mobile Wallet USSD Code, a platform designed to allow parents to monitor and control spending by minors and young adults through linked M-PESA accounts. The concept was registered and protected before it was presented to Safaricom executives. In 2021, Muoki shared detailed presentations and product documentation with senior officials at the company, including Lopokoiyit, who at the time served as Chief Financial Services Officer and had also assumed leadership of M-PESA Africa.
Court proceedings showed that the proposal was not adopted through any commercial partnership. Instead, the innovator claimed the concept was dismissed, only for Safaricom to later introduce products incorporating similar parent-child wallet functionality. After reviewing evidence presented by both sides, Justice Josephine Mong’are found in favour of Muoki and Beluga Limited, concluding that Safaricom had infringed copyright protections attached to the original work.
The judgment was particularly damaging because it went beyond a simple compensation award. The court imposed what legal analysts have described as a rare “reverse royalty” arrangement, effectively requiring Safaricom to continue compensating the innovator for as long as the disputed features remain active. Several legal commentators have described the ruling as a watershed moment for intellectual property enforcement in Kenya and a victory for independent innovators taking on dominant corporations.
For Safaricom, the consequences are immense. The company is appealing the judgment and has secured temporary relief while the appellate process proceeds. However, the ruling has already created a potential liability running into billions of shillings over time, depending on the eventual outcome of the appeals process and future M-PESA revenues.
What has amplified public interest is Lopokoiyit’s role in the chronology outlined before the court. Although the judgment does not find him personally liable, his name appears repeatedly in evidence relating to the interactions between Muoki and Safaricom. As one of the senior executives who engaged with the innovator during the proposal stage, he has inevitably become linked to a dispute that has now evolved into one of the largest corporate intellectual property losses in Kenyan history.
The timing could hardly be worse for Absa. Lopokoiyit joined the banking giant in April 2026 amid expectations that he would spearhead growth across retail and private banking operations. Instead, his arrival has coincided with renewed public scrutiny of decisions made during his tenure at Safaricom.
For critics, the issue is not simply the Sh1.4 billion award. It is what the case represents. The ruling has reignited longstanding concerns about how major corporations engage with independent innovators and whether powerful institutions sometimes exploit their superior resources to commercialise ideas without adequately recognising or compensating their creators.
For Absa, the controversy presents a reputational challenge it neither anticipated nor invited. The bank hired an executive with an impressive track record in digital finance. It now finds itself answering questions about whether it fully appreciated the legal and reputational baggage attached to one of the most high-profile figures in Kenya’s fintech industry.
For Safaricom, the judgment is a reminder that innovation disputes can become extraordinarily expensive when governance controls fail. What began as a product pitch by an entrepreneur has evolved into a legal battle that threatens to cost the telecommunications giant billions and may influence how corporate Kenya handles intellectual property claims for years to come.
And for Lopokoiyit, a fresh start at Absa has been overshadowed by a court ruling that refuses to stay in the past. Whether Safaricom ultimately overturns the judgment on appeal remains to be seen. Until then, one of Kenya’s most celebrated fintech executives will continue to face questions about a decision that has become a Sh1.4 billion headache for his former employer.
There's no story that cannot be told. We cover the stories that others don't want to be told, we bring you all the news you need. If you have tips, exposes or any story you need to be told bluntly and all queries write to us [email protected] also find us on Telegram
