Muchiri & another v Co-operative Bank of Kenya & 2 others (Civil Appeal E1174 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 16788 (KLR) (14 November 2025) (Judgment)

Utility Model Detail

Utility Model

Muchiri & another v Co-operative Bank of Kenya & 2 others (Civil Appeal E1174 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 16788 (KLR) (14 November 2025) (Judgment)

Parties
Alex Muigai Muchiri & Intestyl/Itesyl Technologies v Co-operative Bank of Kenya, Proptech Kenya & Ezen Partners Limited
Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts), on appeal from the Industrial Property Tribunal
Bench
Justice W.M. Musyoka
Tags
Utility model infringement Utility model validity
Date
2026-08-26

Facts

Muchiri and Itesyl Technologies held Utility Model KE/UM/2020/1466 (Certificate No. 315), "Computer Implemented Banking System for Real Estate Management", designed to let landlords reconcile rent via Co-operative Bank's core banking APIs. After an API service agreement and joint testing with the bank, the bank allegedly launched its own "Open Banking Project" using the same features and licensed similar functionality to third parties. Itesyl sued for Ksh 216.5 million, alleging infringement; the bank counterclaimed for revocation of the utility model. This was an appeal from the Industrial Property Tribunal's dismissal (IPT Case No. E002 of 2021, judgment 5 October 2023).

Issues

Whether the respondents misappropriated or infringed the utility model; whether a permanent injunction should issue; and whether the utility model's registration should be revoked.

Rule

Industrial Property Act, s.2 (definition of utility model), s.103(3) (revocation grounds); the Tribunal and High Court relied on Sanitam Services (EA) Ltd v Rentokil (K) Ltd & another [2006] KECA 362 (KLR) on the burden of proving infringement, Kibo Capital Group Ltd & another v Safaricom PLC [2022] KEIPT 872 (KLR) and Akuon v Safaricom PLC & 2 others [2022] KEIPT 873 (KLR) on computer programs and business methods being outside patentable and utility-model subject matter, and Designers Guild v Russell Williams [2000] and Dedan Maina Warui v Safaricom [2014] KEHC 2948 on the idea/expression dichotomy.

Analysis

The Tribunal, and the High Court on appeal, found the invention was functionally dependent on the bank's pre-existing core banking system and APIs and could not operate independently. Because it relied on already-existing mechanisms rather than constituting an independent apparatus or configuration, the court held it was not a proper subject of utility-model protection and disqualified it from both infringement protection and continued registration, applying the same computer-program and business-method reasoning as in Kibo Capital v Safaricom.

Conclusion

Appeal dismissed; the Tribunal's dismissal of the infringement claim and revocation of the utility model were upheld; costs to the respondents.

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.