NAIROBI, Kenya — The Court of Appeal has dismissed an attempt by Kenya Postel Directories Limited to revive a decades-old copyright dispute against Yellow Pages Publishing & Marketing Limited and Telkom Kenya Limited, ruling that the review procedure cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal.
In a judgment delivered on January 30, 2026, a three-judge bench comprising Court of Appeal President Daniel K. Musinga and Justices Joel Ngugi and George V. Odunga upheld a High Court decision that had declined to review earlier orders dismissing the suit for want of prosecution.
The dispute traces back to 2002, when Kenya Postel sued Yellow Pages Publishing & Marketing Limited over alleged copyright infringement relating to telephone directories. The company sought injunctive relief, damages, and an account of profits. Yellow Pages filed a defence and counterclaim, and Telkom Kenya Limited was later joined to the proceedings.
Court records show that the matter stalled repeatedly over the years due to incomplete pre-trial processes and failure to comply with procedural directions. In March 2016, the High Court dismissed Kenya Postel’s main suit for want of prosecution, citing inordinate delay, non-compliance with court orders, and prejudice to the respondents. Kenya Postel did not appeal that decision.
Instead, the company filed a series of applications in 2016 and 2017, including a bid to have Yellow Pages’ counterclaim dismissed and a separate application seeking review of the dismissal of its own suit. In the review application, Kenya Postel argued that the High Court had acted inconsistently by dismissing the main suit while allowing the counterclaim to proceed, which it claimed amounted to unequal treatment and judicial bias.
The High Court rejected those arguments in November 2017, holding that the threshold for review had not been met. Kenya Postel then appealed that ruling to the Court of Appeal.
In its judgment, the appellate court held that allegations of bias or claims of inconsistent reasoning do not constitute an “error apparent on the face of the record,” which is the narrow ground upon which a court may exercise its review jurisdiction.
The judges emphasised that the power of review is limited and cannot be used to re-evaluate the merits of a decision or to correct what a party perceives as flawed reasoning.
“The appellant’s grievance relates to discretionary decisions of the High Court, which were appealable,” the court said. “Having elected not to appeal, the appellant cannot later invoke the review jurisdiction as a surrogate appellate process.”
The bench noted that Kenya Postel had failed to appeal both the 2016 dismissal of its suit and the 2017 ruling that allowed the counterclaim to proceed, despite those avenues being available in law.
The court also rejected Kenya Postel’s attempt to recast the dispute as a constitutional matter under Articles 10, 27, and 159 of the Constitution. The judges held that constitutional values do not override clear procedural distinctions between appeal and review, nor do they permit parties to bypass established appellate remedies.
“There was no misdirection in law, no consideration of irrelevant factors, and no plainly wrong exercise of discretion demonstrated,” the court concluded.
The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, with costs awarded to Yellow Pages Publishing & Marketing Limited, effectively bringing to a close a dispute that has lingered in the courts for more than two decades.
