From love to lawsuits: Court sides with Kabu in Sh1.86bn Bonfire phone lines row
At the centre of the dispute is Kabu's claim for Sh1.86 billion, which he says is owed by Bonfire Adventures for the company's use of the lines that are registered in his personal name. He is also seeking an additional Sh14.4 million per month for their continued use.
The High Court has dismissed an application by Bonfire Adventures and Events Ltd co-director Sarah Njoki Nyaga seeking orders to stop her estranged husband and co-founder, Simon Waithaka Kabu, from interfering with 48 Safaricom mobile lines used in the company’s operations.
The ruling by Justice Josephine Mong’are is the latest development in an ongoing dispute between the estranged couple, who are also engaged in divorce and matrimonial property proceedings, over the ownership and use of the telephone lines.
At the centre of the dispute is Kabu’s claim for Sh1.86 billion, which he says is owed by Bonfire Adventures for the company’s use of the lines that are registered in his personal name.
He is also seeking an additional Sh14.4 million per month for their continued use.
Justice Mong’are found that it was undisputed that the 48 Safaricom lines are registered under Kabu’s name and held that the applicants had failed to provide evidence showing that he held them in trust for the company.
“Since the Defendant is the registered subscriber, the Plaintiffs have no privity of contract with the telecommunications provider, Safaricom, regarding those lines and, without evidence to the contrary, they remain, at least on a prima facie basis, the property of the Defendant,” the judge ruled.
The court noted that Bonfire Adventures and Njoki had not produced any trust document, board resolution, written agreement or other contemporaneous evidence demonstrating that Kabu agreed to hold the lines on behalf of the company.
Justice Mong’are further observed that a demand letter issued by Kabu’s lawyers on November 3, 2025 acknowledged that the lines had been used by Bonfire Adventures but did not seek to repossess or deactivate them. Instead, the demand sought compensation for their use.
The court also noted that the disputed numbers account for only 48 out of approximately 154 telephone lines used by the company. Of the total, 102 lines are registered in Bonfire’s name, while the company continues to acquire additional lines.
Rejecting claims that Kabu was attempting to sabotage the company’s operations, the court said there was no evidence that he had deactivated or interfered with any of the numbers.
“He only issued a demand for payment, which he is legally entitled to do considering the subject lines are registered in his name,” the court held.
In dismissing the application, Justice Mong’are found that Njoki and the company had failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success.
The judge said the applicants had admitted that the lines were registered in Kabu’s name, had not produced any trust documents, board resolutions or agreements showing that the lines were held in trust for the company, had not demonstrated any direct financial contribution towards acquiring the lines, and had failed to rebut the legal presumption that the registered subscriber is the owner.
Njoki had sought temporary orders restraining Kabu from deactivating, blocking, transferring or otherwise interfering with the lines pending determination of the suit.
She also sought orders barring him from accessing, copying or using company data and client information linked to the numbers, compelling him to surrender SIM cards, passwords, login credentials and digital access codes, and directing a forensic audit and backup of company telephone records, WhatsApp Business accounts, customer relationship management (CRM) systems, email servers and client databases.
In her court filings, Njoki said she and Kabu are equal shareholders and co-directors of Bonfire Adventures and that the disputed lines have been used in the company’s business for years, with some dating back to 2013.
She argued that the numbers were initially registered in Kabu’s name in 2011 for administrative convenience to facilitate the start of operations before the company completed formal registration arrangements with Safaricom.
“However, the said lines have at all times been used for and on behalf of the company and maintained at the company’s expense,” she stated.
Njoki accused Kabu of attempting to assert personal ownership over communication infrastructure critical to Bonfire’s operations, alleging that he had threatened to licence, block, transfer or otherwise interfere with the lines without board approval or lawful authority.
Kabu opposed the application, maintaining that ownership of the lines was clear because they are registered in his name. He told the court that he was not seeking to disrupt Bonfire’s operations or gain access to its databases, WhatsApp accounts, CRM systems or client records, but was only pursuing compensation for the use of his property.
He further argued that the company was at liberty to acquire its own telephone lines and migrate its systems if it was unwilling to continue using the disputed numbers under his terms.
