Telecel sued US$340 000 for ‘stolen idea’

By Daniel Nemukuyu

A Harare businessman has filed a High Court application seeking an order barring Telecel Zimbabwe from running the popular Mega Promotion on the basis that it was a “stolen idea”.

Mr Peterson Tengende, who operates an information technology firm Trumbelt Computers is also claiming US$340 000 from the mobile network provider as damages after Telecel “hijacked” his idea to run the mega promotion.

Through his lawyer, Ms Tambudzayi Gonese of Gonese Attorneys and Ms Jacqueline Sande of Sande and Partners, Mr Tengende is seeking to stop the promotion and to be paid the damages.

According to papers filed at the High Court recently, Mr Tengende says early last year he met Telecel representatives seeking to provide consultancy services for the purpose of introducing marketing concepts for the company.

In the course of the engagement, Mr Tengende argues, he wrote a literary work in the form of a report in which he outlined a marketing strategy called “Mega Promo”. According to the report, Trumbelt and Telecel would partner in a mobile quiz programme.

“Defendant (Telecel) without plaintiff’s knowledge, assignment or permission, proceeded to copy and implement the report and its contents, thus infringing the plaintiff’s copyright.

Defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff and as a result of the defendant’’s infringement, plaintiffs have suffered damages in the sum of US$340 000, being a reasonable estimate of plaintiff’s project profit,” read part of the summons.

Mr Tengende says Telecel refused to rectify the infringement or to pay damages, prompting him to seek recourse at the High Court. In a defendant’s plea filed by Honey and Blanckenberg law firm, Telecel denied ever hijacking the project, saying when the company met Mr Tengende it already had the idea.

“During the defendant’s initial discussions with the first plaintiff, the defendant notified that it was already putting together a promotion with another company but nevertheless invited first plaintiff, if he was so inclined, to submit his proposals in writing for consideration and a possible agreement of engagement, subject to the terms and conditions to be agreed upon.

“Defendant has no knowledge of the plaintiff’s professed valid copyright. Defendant denies that copyright exists or vests in plaintiff and denied that an infringement of copyright has taken place,” read part of the plea.

Telecel also challenges the claimed US$340 000, saying the figure was unreasonable and that it did not know how Mr Tengende arrived at the figure. The Registrar of the High Court is yet to set the matter down for hearing.