Safaricom and Saracen Media Named in Ksh1.3 Billion Dispute Over ‘Blaze Kenya’ Campaign
Safaricom Limited has been named in a Ksh1.3 billion intellectual property dispute filed by Transcend Media Group Limited (TMG) at the High Court in Nairobi, in a case arising from a 2016 advertising tender.
The dispute centres on Safaricom’s procurement of creative and digital services for a youth-focused campaign. TMG had submitted a proposal branded “Next Nation” but was unsuccessful in the tender.
Court filings indicate that the contract was awarded to Saracen Media Kenya Limited, which went on to implement the “Blaze Kenya” campaign. TMG now alleges that aspects of the campaign were derived from its original concept, a claim that remains contested and subject to proof before the court.
The suit also raises issues around the conduct of two former TMG employees, who the company alleges were involved in a competing bid while still engaged in the tender process on its behalf. TMG claims this compromised the integrity of its proposal.
Safaricom, however, conducted the tender within a multi-agency procurement framework and the process is expected to come under detailed judicial review.
The court will examine whether there was any breach of procurement standards or misuse of proprietary material during the evaluation and award of the contract.
TMG further alleges that certain Safaricom officials were in communication with third-party agencies during the tender period. It claims this influenced how competing bids were structured, including financial proposals and team composition. These assertions are also contested and will be tested through evidence at trial.
The company is seeking over Ksh1.3 billion in damages, citing alleged copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty and loss of business opportunities. It has also pointed to previous tenders in 2013 and 2014, which it claims followed a similar pattern.
The case will now proceed to full hearing, where the High Court is expected to determine the extent of any liability, if proven, and clarify the legal thresholds for intellectual property protection in competitive procurement processes.
Safaricom has not publicly responded to the claims, and the court’s findings will be central in resolving the dispute.
