The high-profile split between Bonfire Adventures founders Simon Kabu and Sarah Njoki has taken a significant legal turn, with the High Court declining to stop Simon Kabu from using 48 Safaricom phone lines registered in his personal name. The ruling, delivered in June 2026, has sent a sharp warning to Kenyan businesses about the legal risks of operating critical digital assets under individual rather than corporate registration.
The court’s decision was straightforward on the facts. The SIM cards belong to Simon Kabu personally. Neither Bonfire Adventures nor Sarah Njoki could produce a trust deed, board resolution, or written agreement proving he held the lines in trust for the company. Without documentary evidence of a corporate claim, the judge dismissed the application to restrict his use of the numbers.
Why the 48 Lines Matter So Much
The disputed phone lines are not ordinary contact numbers. They function as the central communication hub for Bonfire Adventures’ client bookings, payment processing, and social media operations. For a travel and tours company where customer relationships are built and maintained through consistent contact points, losing access to those numbers could severely disrupt business continuity.
Simon Kabu’s KSh 1.86 billion compensation claim is based on accrued monthly licence fees for the commercial use of his personally registered lines by the company over time. That valuation reflects how commercially significant those numbers have become as business assets, even though they were never formally transferred into the company’s name.
The Court’s Reasoning
The judge’s ruling hinged on a fundamental principle of business law. A company has legal rights only over assets that are contractually or legally linked to it. Because Safaricom had no direct contractual relationship with Bonfire Adventures over the disputed lines, and because the company could not produce any internal documentation establishing Simon Kabu as a trustee holding them on the company’s behalf, the court had no legal basis to grant the restriction sought.
The ruling also noted that Bonfire Adventures is not without recourse. The company controls 102 other Safaricom lines that are registered directly under its corporate name, providing an operational foundation from which to rebuild its communication infrastructure independent of the disputed numbers.
The Legal Precedent Every Business Should Note
This case has become an urgent wake-up call for Kenyan businesses of all sizes. The core lesson is that digital assets, including phone numbers, domain names, email addresses, and social media accounts, carry the same legal ownership risks as physical assets. If they are registered under an individual’s name rather than the company, the company has no guaranteed claim over them when relationships break down.
Also read:Business Ideas in Kenya You Can Start With KSh 1,000 to 10,000
Founders who register business phone lines, websites, or social media pages under their personal accounts for convenience are creating a structural vulnerability that may not matter on a good day but becomes catastrophic during a dispute, a departure, or a succession event.
What Businesses Should Do Immediately
The Bonfire Adventures dispute provides a clear checklist for any business that wants to avoid a similar situation. Start by auditing every digital asset the business depends on, including phone numbers, domain names, email accounts, WhatsApp Business numbers, Google Business profiles, and social media pages, and verify that each one is registered directly under the company’s name or a corporate email account.
Where assets are currently registered under individual names, the Business Registration Service and relevant service providers can guide the transfer process. Any arrangement where an individual holds a business asset on behalf of the company should be documented formally through a board resolution or trust deed, regardless of how trusted that individual is within the organisation.
The Kenya judiciary’s handling of this case confirms that courts will apply strict legal standards when evaluating ownership claims over digital assets. Good faith and long-standing practice will not substitute for proper documentation when a dispute reaches the courtroom.