A contract dispute between Safaricom, Kenya’s largest telecom operator, and longtime supplier Goodweek Inter-Providers Restricted has escalated right into a authorized battle on the nation’s Excessive Court docket. Goodweek, which sells M-PESA providers, SIM playing cards, and Safaricom merchandise, is difficult its removing from Safaricom’s dealership community, accusing the telecom large of abusing its market energy to impose unfair contract phrases.
The case, now earlier than the Constitutional and Human Rights division of the Excessive Court docket of Kenya, additionally names Vodafone Plc, Vodafone Kenya Restricted, and Mobitelea Ventures Restricted as respondents, suggesting that Goodweek sees the dispute as bigger than simply Safaricom.
Goodweek had been buying and selling on Safaricom’s supplier portal since 2002 however misplaced entry in April 2024 after failing to resume its contract. Safaricom argues the suspension was automated and procedural, triggered by the expiration of the dealership settlement.
“The first respondent’s (Safaricom) On-line Seller Buying and selling Portal’s automated shut-down response is a safeguard mechanism designed to make sure compliance with regulatory and contractual obligations,” the corporate acknowledged in courtroom paperwork.
In response to Safaricom, all sellers function beneath comparable phrases, and over 400 different sellers renewed their agreements with out difficulty. The telco maintains that Goodweek had ample discover to resume its contract however selected to not, making its claims of unfair remedy baseless.
Goodweek, nevertheless, contends that its removing was something however routine. The corporate claims Safaricom used its dominant market place to drive sellers into signing contracts with no room for negotiation. Goodweek argues that it was successfully locked out by refusing to simply accept these phrases.
The supplier’s authorized technique consists of bringing Vodafone Plc, Vodafone Kenya, and Mobitelea into the case, although Safaricom’s lawyer, Daniel Ndaba, has questioned the relevance of their inclusion.
On the coronary heart of the case is a key authorized query: Did Safaricom merely implement normal contract phrases, or did it use its market energy to strong-arm smaller gamers?
Safaricom insists it didn’t terminate Goodweek’s contract; relatively, the settlement expired naturally on account of Goodweek’s refusal to signal a brand new deal. The telco additionally argues that the dispute ought to have gone to arbitration, as stipulated within the contract, relatively than courtroom.
“The first respondent (Safaricom) didn’t terminate the contract between itself and the petitioner (Goodweek),” Safaricom acknowledged in courtroom paperwork. “The stated contract lapsed by effluxion of time as events have been unable to barter and enter into one other contract and/or lengthen the phrases as they’d beforehand completed.”
However, Goodweek sees this as a check case for the ability dynamics between giant telecom companies and their smaller companions. If the Excessive Court docket guidelines in its favour, the case may set a precedent for the way dominant companies have interaction with sellers in Kenya’s telecom sector.
With arbitration clauses, market dominance issues, and contract legislation all in play, the result of this case may have far-reaching implications for the business.