' REPUBLIC O
The Applicant, by her Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit dated 22nd September 2025, describes herself as an Emmy-winning filmmaker, AI artist, and founder of ArtsEnvoy.ai — a creative-AI storytelling and education platform developed through over two decades of professional work in art, storytelling, and sustainability under the United Nations framework.
She states that between May and June 2025, the 1st and 2nd Defendants, both IT and data-security specialists affiliated with the 3rd Defendant, Posh IT Limited , approached her regarding a potential collaboration for the Kenya pilot of the Africa AI Creators Academy .
The Applicant s that following initial engagements, a draft founders’ or partnership agreement was circulated on or about 1st July 2025, bearing suggested edits from an account named “Urban Spy,” believed to belong to the 2nd Defendant. A subsequent draft co-founder’ agreement dated 4th August 2025 identified the parties, including the Defendants, as co-founders and was used to represent them collectively in a Y-Combinator application.
She further contends that on 14th August 2025, the Defendants requested copies of her American passport, ostensibly for registering ArtsEnvoy.ai as a Kenyan company. However, on 15th August 2025, and without her knowledge or consent, the Defendants incorporated Optifyne Inc. in Delaware, United States. The Applicant asserts that the Defendants thereafter circulated concept materials replicating elements of her ArtsEnvoy.ai project and presented themselves and Optifyne at related events, while deliberately excluding her from planning meetings by withholding her contact details from organizers.
The Applicant further claims that the Defendants assured her they would secure funding amounting to USD 1,000,000 by December 2025 and provide interim financial support pending such funding. Relying on these assurances, she refrained from pursuing other opportunities. However, when the Defendants later disclosed that the funding would not materialize due to delayed government payments, she suffered professional and financial loss.
Reliefs Sought
In her Notice of Motion, the Applicant sought the following orders:
a. Disclosure and deletion of passport copies:
That the Defendants do forthwith disclose, on oath, whether they hold any copy (physical or electronic) of her American passport, and if so, identify where it is stored, to whom it has been disseminated, and thereafter permanently delete and destroy all such copies and file written confirmation of deletion within seventy-two (72) hours.
b. Preservation and deletion of intellectual property and confidential information:
That the Defendants do forthwith cease use of, and delete from all computers, servers, cloud accounts, storage devices, and other media, any files, data, or materials comprising or derived from the Applicant’s ArtsEnvoy.ai intellectual property, business plans, partner lists, student lists, or other confidential information, and file written confirmation of deletion within seventy-two (72) hours.
c. Temporary injunction:
That pending the hearing and determination of this application and thereafter of the suit, a temporary injunction do issue restraining the Defendants, whether by themselves, their servants, or agents, from:
i. Participating in, being recognized as sponsors of, or otherwise benefiting from the Origins Fest Innovation Hackathon ;
ii. Using, presenting, or misrepresenting the Applicant’s ArtsEnvoy.ai intellectual property or concepts (including tracks in financial literacy, arts, climate, creative economy, and storytelling) in connection with the said Hackathon or any related initiative; and
iii. Failing to honor the commitments previously made to students of the Africa AI Creators Academy , including promised paid opportunities and mentorship, by either fulfilling those commitments forthwith or refraining from publicly presenting themselves as sponsors of any other student-focused initiative until such commitments are fulfilled.
d. That pending hearing, the Defendants be restrained from accessing, using, or disseminating any partner or student information supplied by or obtained from the Applicant.
e. Costs of the application.
Preliminary Objection
The Defendants filed a Preliminary Objection on the following grounds:
a. That the Notice of Motion is not properly before the court for determination under Order 40(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules;
b. That the Notice of Motion is not a pleading and is therefore incapable of forming the basis of a substantive determination; and
c. That consequently, the Notice of Motion is incompetent, frivolous, fatally defective, and an abuse of the court process, and should therefore be struck out with costs.
The record, however, shows that after the filing of the Plaint, and upon the Court noting that the Applicant was acting in person, the Preliminary Objection was dispensed with . The Court proceeded to consider the substantive issues raised in the Notice of Motion on their merits.
Analysis and Determination
The principles guiding the grant of interlocutory injunctions are well established in Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358. An applicant must demonstrate:
i. A prima facie case with a probability of success;
ii. That they will suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages; and
iii. That the balance of convenience tilts in their favour.
On whether a prima facie case has been established, I note that the intellectual property rights alleged to have been infringed are disputed. The competing claims require a full hearing with cross-examination for proper determination.
Regarding irreparable harm , I find that any loss arising from the alleged breach could be adequately compensated by an award of damages if, at trial, the Applicant succeeds in establishing her claim.
Having considered the material before me, it is evident that the issues raised are contested and can only be conclusively resolved upon the full hearing of the main suit. To make definitive findings at this interlocutory stage would risk prejudging the substantive disp
Disposition
In the circumstances, and in the interests of justice, I am not persuaded that this is an appropriate case to grant or deny the injunction in finality at this stage.
However, the Court hereby orders that the Defendants shall not use, disclose, or circulate any copy of the Applicant’s passport or other personal identifying information in any of their ongoing or future activities pending further orders of this Court.
The matter shall be fast-tracked for hearing on a priority basis.
Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 9TH DAY October OF 2025.
LADY JUSTICE WENDY K. MICHENI
JUDGE
'
The Applicant, by her Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavit dated 22nd September 2025, describes herself as an Emmy-winning filmmaker, AI artist, and founder of ArtsEnvoy.ai — a creative-AI storytelling and education platform developed through over two decades of professional work in art, storytelling, and sustainability under the United Nations framework.
She states that between May and June 2025, the 1st and 2nd Defendants, both IT and data-security specialists affiliated with the 3rd Defendant, Posh IT Limited , approached her regarding a potential collaboration for the Kenya pilot of the Africa AI Creators Academy .
The Applicant s that following initial engagements, a draft founders’ or partnership agreement was circulated on or about 1st July 2025, bearing suggested edits from an account named “Urban Spy,” believed to belong to the 2nd Defendant. A subsequent draft co-founder’ agreement dated 4th August 2025 identified the parties, including the Defendants, as co-founders and was used to represent them collectively in a Y-Combinator application.
She further contends that on 14th August 2025, the Defendants requested copies of her American passport, ostensibly for registering ArtsEnvoy.ai as a Kenyan company. However, on 15th August 2025, and without her knowledge or consent, the Defendants incorporated Optifyne Inc. in Delaware, United States. The Applicant asserts that the Defendants thereafter circulated concept materials replicating elements of her ArtsEnvoy.ai project and presented themselves and Optifyne at related events, while deliberately excluding her from planning meetings by withholding her contact details from organizers.
The Applicant further claims that the Defendants assured her they would secure funding amounting to USD 1,000,000 by December 2025 and provide interim financial support pending such funding. Relying on these assurances, she refrained from pursuing other opportunities. However, when the Defendants later disclosed that the funding would not materialize due to delayed government payments, she suffered professional and financial loss.
Reliefs Sought
In her Notice of Motion, the Applicant sought the following orders:
a. Disclosure and deletion of passport copies:
That the Defendants do forthwith disclose, on oath, whether they hold any copy (physical or electronic) of her American passport, and if so, identify where it is stored, to whom it has been disseminated, and thereafter permanently delete and destroy all such copies and file written confirmation of deletion within seventy-two (72) hours.
b. Preservation and deletion of intellectual property and confidential information:
That the Defendants do forthwith cease use of, and delete from all computers, servers, cloud accounts, storage devices, and other media, any files, data, or materials comprising or derived from the Applicant’s ArtsEnvoy.ai intellectual property, business plans, partner lists, student lists, or other confidential information, and file written confirmation of deletion within seventy-two (72) hours.
c. Temporary injunction:
That pending the hearing and determination of this application and thereafter of the suit, a temporary injunction do issue restraining the Defendants, whether by themselves, their servants, or agents, from:
i. Participating in, being recognized as sponsors of, or otherwise benefiting from the Origins Fest Innovation Hackathon ;
ii. Using, presenting, or misrepresenting the Applicant’s ArtsEnvoy.ai intellectual property or concepts (including tracks in financial literacy, arts, climate, creative economy, and storytelling) in connection with the said Hackathon or any related initiative; and
iii. Failing to honor the commitments previously made to students of the Africa AI Creators Academy , including promised paid opportunities and mentorship, by either fulfilling those commitments forthwith or refraining from publicly presenting themselves as sponsors of any other student-focused initiative until such commitments are fulfilled.
d. That pending hearing, the Defendants be restrained from accessing, using, or disseminating any partner or student information supplied by or obtained from the Applicant.
e. Costs of the application.
Preliminary Objection
The Defendants filed a Preliminary Objection on the following grounds:
a. That the Notice of Motion is not properly before the court for determination under Order 40(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules;
b. That the Notice of Motion is not a pleading and is therefore incapable of forming the basis of a substantive determination; and
c. That consequently, the Notice of Motion is incompetent, frivolous, fatally defective, and an abuse of the court process, and should therefore be struck out with costs.
The record, however, shows that after the filing of the Plaint, and upon the Court noting that the Applicant was acting in person, the Preliminary Objection was dispensed with . The Court proceeded to consider the substantive issues raised in the Notice of Motion on their merits.
Analysis and Determination
The principles guiding the grant of interlocutory injunctions are well established in Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358. An applicant must demonstrate:
i. A prima facie case with a probability of success;
ii. That they will suffer irreparable harm not compensable by damages; and
iii. That the balance of convenience tilts in their favour.
On whether a prima facie case has been established, I note that the intellectual property rights alleged to have been infringed are disputed. The competing claims require a full hearing with cross-examination for proper determination.
Regarding irreparable harm , I find that any loss arising from the alleged breach could be adequately compensated by an award of damages if, at trial, the Applicant succeeds in establishing her claim.
Having considered the material before me, it is evident that the issues raised are contested and can only be conclusively resolved upon the full hearing of the main suit. To make definitive findings at this interlocutory stage would risk prejudging the substantive disp
Disposition
In the circumstances, and in the interests of justice, I am not persuaded that this is an appropriate case to grant or deny the injunction in finality at this stage.
However, the Court hereby orders that the Defendants shall not use, disclose, or circulate any copy of the Applicant’s passport or other personal identifying information in any of their ongoing or future activities pending further orders of this Court.
The matter shall be fast-tracked for hearing on a priority basis.
Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 9TH DAY October OF 2025.
LADY JUSTICE WENDY K. MICHENI
JUDGE
'