NAIROBI, Kenya — A High Court has overturned a Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court decision that had awarded journalist and media personality Willis Raburu Sh 6.5 million in damages over alleged trademark misuse, ruling that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to try the case.
Raburu had sued a major telecommunications firm, alleging that it used his registered trademark “BAZU” without authorization to promote its data bundles.
In 2024, the magistrate awarded him Sh5 million in special damages and Sh1.5 million in general damages, and issued a permanent injunction barring the company from further use of the mark.
However, Justice Linus Kassan, in the High Court, found that the magistrate’s court exceeded its mandate by adjudicating a trademark dispute.
He held that under Section 49 of the Trademarks Act, only the High Court or the Registrar of Trademarks has authority to hear and determine trademark matters. Consequently, he struck out Raburu’s case and ordered that costs be awarded to the telecommunication firm.
The court also noted procedural irregularities. It highlighted that the case had been transferred from the High Court to the magistrate’s court in error, a move Justice Kassan deemed contrary to statutory limits.
In its defence, the telco had argued that ‘BAZU’ is a common slang in Kenyan popular culture and thus not subject to exclusive control, and also contended that the lower court lacked the power to decide trademark suits.
The High Court accepted that the magistrate erred in assuming jurisdiction.
For Raburu, the setback means he cannot enforce the earlier award unless he files a fresh case in the appropriate forum. Legal observers say his immediate recourse is to refile the suit in the High Court—or pursue relief from the Registrar of Trademarks.
The ruling affirms the legal principle that courts must operate strictly within the boundaries of their jurisdiction.
Moving forward, branding and intellectual property disputes must proceed in courts legally competent to hear them—a safeguard against procedural overreach and misdirected litigation.
