The High Court has dismissed an application by Bonfire Adventures and Events Ltd co-director Sarah Njoki Nyaga seeking to stop her estranged husband and fellow co-founder Simon Waithaka Kabu from accessing or using 48 mobile phone lines registered with Safaricom and used in the tour firm’s operations.
The ruling marks the latest chapter in a bitter dispute between the estranged couple, who are also embroiled in divorce and matrimonial property proceedings, over ownership and use of the telephone lines.
At the centre of the case is a demand by Mr Kabu for Sh1.86 billion, which he says is owed for the company’s use of the lines that are registered in his personal name.
In a ruling delivered on June 19, the court found that it was not disputed that the 48 Safaricom lines are registered under Mr Kabu’s name.
While Bonfire Adventures and Ms Njoki argued that the lines were registered in his name merely for administrative convenience and that he held them in trust for the company, the court found no evidence to support that claim.
“As the defendant is the registered subscriber, the plaintiffs have no privity of contract with the telecommunications provider, Safaricom, regarding those lines and without evidence to the contrary, they remain, at least on a prima facie basis, the property of the Defendant,” the court said.
The judge noted that Ms Njoki had not produced any trust document, board resolution, written agreement or other contemporaneous evidence showing that Mr Kabu agreed to hold the lines on behalf of the company.
The court further observed that a demand letter sent by Mr Kabu’s lawyers on November 3, 2025, acknowledged that the lines had been used by the tour company but did not seek to take them away from the company.
According to the court, the letter sought compensation for their use rather than deactivation.
The court also noted that the disputed numbers account for only 48 of approximately 154 telephone lines used by the company. Of those, 102 lines are registered in the company’s name, while Bonfire Adventures continues to acquire additional lines.
Rejecting claims of corporate sabotage, the court said there was no evidence that Mr Kabu had deactivated any of the numbers.
“He only issued a demand for payment, which he is legally entitled to do considering the subject lines are registered in his name,” the court said.
In dismissing the application, the judge found that Ms Njoki and the company had failed to establish a prima facie case.
The dispute arose after Mr Kabu demanded Sh1.86 billion from Bonfire and Ms Njoki, claiming accrued monthly licence fees for the use of the lines. He also sought an additional Sh14.4 million per month for their continued use. Ms Njoki had asked the court to issue temporary orders restraining Mr Kabu from tampering with the lines in the suit.
“In the end, I find that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success as they have admitted the lines are registered in the defendant’s name, produced no trust document, board resolution, or written agreement showing that the lines are registered in the defendant’s name in trust for the company, they have not shown any direct financial contribution toward purchase of the lines themselves and they have not rebutted the statutory presumption that the registered subscriber is the owner,” the court ruled.
She further sought orders barring him from accessing, copying or using company data and client information linked to the numbers, and compelling him to surrender SIM cards, passwords, login credentials and digital access codes.
She also requested a forensic audit and backup of company telephone records, WhatsApp Business accounts, customer relationship management (CRM) systems, email servers and client databases.
In her court filings, Ms Njoki said she and Mr Kabu are equal shareholders and co-directors of Bonfire Adventures and that the disputed lines had been used in the company’s business for years, some dating back to 2013.
She argued that the numbers were initially registered in Mr Kabu’s name in 2011 to facilitate the start of operations before the company completed formal registration arrangements with Safaricom.
“However, the said lines have at all times been used for and on behalf of the company and maintained at the company’s expense,” she said.
Ms Njoki accused Mr Kabu of asserting personal ownership over communication infrastructure that is critical to Bonfire’s operations.
“The Defendant has unilaterally asserted personal ownership of the said telephone lines and has threatened to licence, block, transfer or otherwise interfere with them absent any Board resolution, contract, or lawful authority. The Defendant’s conduct is an attempt to expropriate communication infrastructure essential to the company’s business,” she said.
Mr Kabu opposed the application, insisting that ownership of the lines was clear because they are registered in his name.
“It is clear that in the absence of any right to be vindicated by the Plaintiff, as well as nothing to show any injury, the balance of convenience heavily tilts towards not granting the injunction,” he argued.
He maintained that he was not seeking to disrupt Bonfire’s operations or gain access to its databases, WhatsApp accounts, CRM systems or client records, but was only seeking compensation for the use of his property.
Mr Kabu also argued that the company was free to acquire its own lines and migrate its systems if it was unwilling to pay for continued use of the disputed numbers.
