Here is why DPP and Jambo Pay are to settle serves’ dispute out of court

Related image

Webtribe Limited which trades as Jambopay, moved to court seeking orders restraining the Director of Criminal Investigation from seizing or interfering with its servers. The court heard that the DCI had threatened to take over the company’s servers, a move they argued amount to a breach to right to property.

Image result for webtribe limited

The High Court has urged the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and Webtribe Limited which trades as Jambopay to explore ways of settling a dispute involving the company’s servers, out of court, in the case of the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF).

Image result for webtribe limited

Justice John Onyiego on Friday gave the DPP and Webtribe one month to discuss the issue before the mention of the case on April 25.  The Judge gave the directive after dismissing an objection filed by the DPP, seeking to dismiss the suit by the company, which provides services to NHIF.

Image result for high court kenya

Further, the company said there was real and imminent threat of violation and infringement of its intellectual property. Webtribe said in the application that it has a contractual obligation with NHIF and any interference would jeopardise the contract.

Image result for jambopay

The company claimed in the application that unless orders are issued restraining DCI through any of its agents or investigators from seizing, carrying away or interfering with the servers containing Information and Technology (IT) system, the company will suffer massive and unprecedented breach of intellectual property rights, privacy and the rights to provide commercial and corporate services for value, for which liquidated damages may not be adequate remedy.

Image result for dpp kenya

But the DPP wanted the petition dismissed saying that the company had filed a similar application before the Judicial Review court.  The judicial review case, seeks to quash criminal proceedings brought against the company and its directors. The court heard that the application was subjudice and an abuse of the court process. But in the ruling, Justice Onyiego said the orders being sought before the Judicial Review court were different the case before him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *