For five years, Teddy Ogallo, the founder of Kenyan AI startup WayaWaya, has been fighting to correct a persistent public narrative. Despite an official announcement and widespread media coverage in 2021, he maintains that his company was never acquired by customer experience firm Ajua. This ongoing dispute highlights a significant conflict between public reporting and official company records.
The Disputed Transaction
In April 2021, Ajua announced its acquisition of WayaWaya, a move reported by prominent outlets as a strategic consolidation in Africa's tech landscape. The news was framed as a sign of the ecosystem's growing maturity, suggesting a new wave of value creation through mergers. This narrative quickly spread across industry databases and search results, cementing the acquisition in the public's mind.
However, WayaWaya's founder Teddy Ogallo presents a starkly different account of the events. He asserts that the arrangement was a personal consultancy agreement for him to join Ajua, which included the transfer of a software platform he personally owned. Ogallo is adamant that there were never any formal discussions, board approvals, or shareholder agreements regarding the sale of WayaWaya.
Navigating the Fallout
The public announcement immediately created significant operational challenges for WayaWaya. Clients, partners, and stakeholders began questioning the company's status and the continuity of its services under new ownership. This forced Ogallo and his team to repeatedly provide explanations and documentation to clarify that WayaWaya remained an independent entity.
The situation escalated when the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK) launched an inquiry into the "alleged acquisition." The regulator requested transaction agreements and board resolutions, placing Ogallo in the challenging position of providing evidence for a deal he claims never happened. This official scrutiny added another layer of complexity to his efforts to set the record straight.
In response to the CAK's inquiry, Ajua’s legal counsel did not address the substance of the acquisition claim. Instead, the company challenged the regulator's jurisdiction, arguing that both firms were incorporated in Delaware, USA, and thus outside Kenyan competition law. This legal maneuver effectively sidestepped questions about the validity of the publicly announced transaction.
A Lingering Contradiction
Over the past five years, Ogallo has tirelessly attempted to correct the misinformation online. He contacted journalists and publications, providing contracts and correspondence to disprove the acquisition story, but his requests to have the original articles removed were unsuccessful. His experience demonstrates the immense difficulty of retracting a powerful narrative once it has been widely circulated.
The timing of the announcement was critical, as it occurred during a period of record venture capital investment in Africa. Acquisitions were viewed as key milestones signaling a maturing market, and the WayaWaya deal fit perfectly into this optimistic narrative. This context likely contributed to the story's rapid and widespread acceptance without deeper scrutiny.
Today, the conflicting histories persist, with Ajua's founder Kenfield Griffith recently stating the "transaction was cancelled back in 2023" without further clarification. Meanwhile, WayaWaya continues to operate independently, serving banks and telecommunications companies across Africa. The unresolved discrepancy leaves a permanent question mark in the public records of both companies.
The protracted dispute between WayaWaya and Ajua serves as a stark cautionary tale for the technology industry. It underscores how a compelling but inaccurate narrative can overshadow documented facts, creating lasting reputational and operational damage. Ultimately, the case highlights the enduring challenge of correcting the digital record and the profound impact of misinformation.
Source: Techcabal.com