Patents Detail

Patents

Sanitam Services (E.A) Ltd v Rentokil (K) Ltd & another [2006] KECA 362 (KLR)

Parties
Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd v Rentokil (K) Ltd & Kentainers (K) Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal of Kenya at Nairobi
Bench
S.E.O. Bosire, P.N. Waki, W.S. Deverell, JJA
Tags
Patent infringement Burden of proof
Date
2026-08-26

Facts

Sanitam invented a foot-operated sanitary disposal bin in 1997, applied for a Kenyan patent in September 1997 and an ARIPO patent (granted as AP773 on 15 October 1999). Rentokil and Kentainers manufactured and sold a similar bin ("SANITACT"); Sanitam sued for infringement.

Issues

Whether the respondents infringed Sanitam's patent; when patent protection commences, from application or from grant; and whether damages or an injunction were warranted.

Rule

Industrial Property Act (Cap 509), ss.35, 36, 39, and especially s.116, which places the burden of proof on the party alleging infringement.

Analysis

The Court held protection arises only from grant (15 October 1999), not the application date; Sanitam failed to prove the respondents' product entered the market only after that date, and the unpublished patent application gave no constructive notice to third parties.

Conclusion

Appeal dismissed but modified — a permanent injunction was granted effective 16 December 1999 (when the patent was first disclosed in amended pleadings) for the life of the patent; damages were refused for lack of proof of post-grant infringement; each party bore its own costs.

Judgement available at kenyalaw.org.

Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

The IP Case Law Database is a repository of case briefs summarising rulings and judgments related to intellectual property law in Kenya. It covers various types of IP, including copyrights, trademarks, patents, and more.

The database is open to legal practitioners, researchers, scholars, and students interested in the field of intellectual property law in Kenya. It is designed to be a useful tool for anyone seeking to understand the legal precedents that shape IP law in the country.

The database features cases across all areas of intellectual property law, including copyright infringement, trademark disputes, patent issues, and cases involving industrial designs and utility models. It also includes cases related to collective management organisations and royalty collection.

We aim to update the database regularly to ensure that it contains the latest rulings and judgments. New cases are added as soon as they are available to keep our users informed about the latest developments in IP law.

Yes, the database is fully searchable. You can search by case name, type of intellectual property, legal issue, or court decision. This allows you to quickly find relevant case briefs based on your research needs.

Each case brief includes key details such as the facts of the case, the legal issues at hand, the court’s ruling, and a summary of the legal analysis. This structure helps users quickly understand the critical points of each ruling.

In addition to the case briefs, we provide links to full-text judgments where available. This ensures that users can access the complete legal reasoning and details if they need more in-depth information.

To cite cases from our database, you should follow standard legal citation practices. Each case brief includes the official case reference, making it easy to include in your legal documents or research papers.

At this time, the database is curated by legal experts and researchers. However, we welcome suggestions for cases to include or features to improve the platform. Please contact us through our support page if you have feedback or suggestions.