Latest News
Kenyan Trader Beats India’s APEDA in Basmati Trademark Battle as Court Orders KSh1.22 Million Release
A decade-long legal battle over the coveted “Basmati” name has produced another victory for Krish Commodities Limited.
The High Court has ordered the release of KSh1.22 million, plus interest, after the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) lost its appeal.
Justice Janet Mulwa delivered the ruling last week, bringing another chapter to the long-running dispute.
The money represented taxed costs awarded to Krish after APEDA lost its High Court appeal.
But behind the KSh1.22 million lies a much bigger fight over who could legally claim the name “Basmati”.
Battle Over Basmati
The dispute dates back to October 2009, when Krish Commodities applied to register six trademarks incorporating “Basmati Rice”.
The company sought registration while disclaiming exclusive rights over the individual words contained within those marks.
APEDA, an Indian statutory authority, opposed the applications before Kenya’s trademark authorities.
It argued that “Basmati” identified a distinctive aromatic rice associated with India and Pakistan.
The authority maintained that the name deserved protection as a geographical indication.
The fight reached Kenya’s Registrar of Trade Marks, Henry Kibet Mutai, in 2013.
On May 17, 2013, Mutai rejected APEDA’s opposition and awarded costs against the authority.
APEDA subsequently challenged that decision before the High Court.
High Court Defeat
On April 26, 2017, Justice Mbogholi-Msagha dismissed APEDA’s appeal with costs.
The court found that APEDA’s status as an Indian statutory authority did not establish ownership rights.
It also found insufficient evidence that Krish intended to deceive consumers through its trademarks.
APEDA nevertheless continued the fight through another appeal.
The dispute eventually reached the Court of Appeal, which heard it on October 3, 2025.
The appellate court dismissed APEDA’s challenge and upheld the earlier decisions.
It also awarded Krish costs arising from the appeal.
The ruling effectively ended the substantive trademark dispute at the appellate level.
KSh1.22 Million Locked
But another issue remained.
During the appeal process, the High Court had ordered KSh1,221,522 deposited into an interest-earning escrow account.
The money was held jointly under the control of advocates representing both sides.
That arrangement was designed to secure the judgement while APEDA pursued its appeal.
Once the Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal, Krish wanted its money.
Its lawyers argued that the reason for keeping the funds in escrow had disappeared.
APEDA, however, indicated that it intended pursuing the matter before the Supreme Court.
There was one problem.
No Supreme Court proceedings or stay order had been placed before Justice Mulwa.
Judge Draws Line
Justice Mulwa rejected the suggestion that a mere intention to appeal could keep the money frozen.
She invoked the fundamental principle that successful litigants should enjoy the fruits of their judgements.
She also cited Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The provision makes clear that an appeal, or intention to appeal, does not automatically stay execution.
A party seeking such protection must obtain a specific stay order from a competent court.
“The substratum of that conditional stay order was the pendency of the appeal,” Justice Mulwa ruled.
Once the Court of Appeal dismissed APEDA’s case, that foundation disappeared.
The judge said the appeal had reached a “final judicial end at that level”.
Interest Follows Money
Justice Mulwa also settled another potentially contentious question: the interest.
The escrow account had expressly been ordered to earn interest during the litigation.
The judge ruled that the accumulated interest belonged with the principal sum.
Krish was therefore entitled to receive KSh1,221,522 plus all accrued interest.
Justice Mulwa consequently allowed Krish’s application dated November 6, 2025.
She ordered the funds transferred to Zamura and Company Advocates, acting for Krish.
The ruling carries a message extending beyond this particular Basmati fight.
An unsuccessful litigant cannot indefinitely suspend payment simply by threatening another appeal.
The law mandates an actual stay order to halt execution.
Without one, the successful party remains entitled to finally collect what the courts awarded.
For Krish, that means a decade-old legal fight has yielded another tangible victory.
For APEDA, it means the price of the prolonged litigation now includes the release of money and accumulated interest.
And for future litigants, Justice Mulwa’s message is unmistakable:
An intention to appeal is not a stay.
PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.