In 2025, Kenyan courts delivered warnings to intellectual property infringers, funnelling millions back into the pockets of musical and film creators and rights-holders through copyright judgments and rulings. Some of the notable victories that largely went under the radar included:
Gospel singer Jiveti Sh3 million win over sampling
In 1990, while studying at Kenyatta University, gospel singer Douglas Jiveti, from an outreach, had an inspiration and composed a song.
He then recorded and released the song Mambo Ya Ajabu (Bwana Mungu Wangu Ninakupenda) in 1992, which turned out to be a gospel hit.
Twenty five years later, a budding gospel musician and podcaster, Florence Nashami Wangar, sampled the song with minimal changes and released it.
In May 2024, Jiveti sued Florence. In December 2025, a Milimani Commercial Magistrate’s Court awarded Sh3 million in general damages to Jiveti, after finding that the 1992 hit Mambo ya Ajabu (Bwana Mungu Wangu ninakupenda) was sampled and re-released by the podcaster without his consent.
“There is obvious repetition of the words ‘amefanya mambo ya ajabu’ with only minimal variation. The rhythms of the two compositions bear striking similarity,” noted the magistrate in the judgment.
Jiveti had asked the court to award him Sh6 million, citing the seven-year infringement period.
“Balancing the duration of infringement, the nature of unauthorised use, and the infringement of both economic and moral rights, and the need to award compensatory rather than punitive damages, I find that an award of Sh3,000,000 as general damages is commensurate with the magnitude of damage suffered by the Plaintiff.’’
Singer Rebecca Wanjiku's Sh1.5m win against CITAM Church
In June, the High Court put on notice church choirs that perform songs composed by other artists and then upload the songs on digital music platforms as though they are the rightful owners.
Gospel singer Wanjiku registered the copyright for her song Rungu Rwa Ihiga (Under the Rock) in January 2011.
But later on, CITAM Men’s church choir incorporated parts of Wanjiku’s song as part of a collection of songs sung by the choir.
The church then uploaded the mix collection titled Athuri Mwihithe (Husbands hide) on YouTube in May 2015. The move prompted Wanjiku to file for copyright infringement.
The church choir pulled two defence lines. First, it claimed Wanjiku’s song was a piece of folklore in the Kikuyu community. Secondly, they claimed their song was inspired by a Bible quote, Exodus 33:21-23.
However, the choir was unable to provide evidence to prove their song creation was independently created without reference to Wanjiku’s work.
“Even if (CITAM) and (Wanjiku) drew inspiration from similar Biblical themes, what is protected is Rebecca’s particular arrangement of lyrics, rhythm, and musical structure. The repeated use of identical lyrics and a substantially similar melody over a significant portion of (CITAM) songs creates the unmistakable impression of copying rather than independent creation,” the judge explained her reasoning in entering the judgment in favour of Wanjiku.
Film producers win Sh7.2 million against Zuku
In May, digital pay TV provider Wananchi Group Ltd ( Zuku) was slapped with a fine of Sh7.2 million for broadcasting a popular TV show Pwagu without the producer’s consent.
The Copyright Tribunal ruled that the company was guilty of copyright infringement after airing the film without the consent of the authors of the show, Kadi Media and Diana Mbogo.
“We find that it is not in dispute that the Respondent (Wananchi Group Ltd) exercised a right exclusive to the 1st Claimant (Kadi Media) by broadcasting to the public the film Pwagu,” the tribunal noted in its determination.
Wananchi Group had argued that it had an agreement with a third party- Sparks Corporate Solutions- who claimed to own the rights to the film.
But the tribunal stated that, where a party claims to have acquired rights through assignment, then the party must produce the licence or assignment duly registered by the Kenya Copyright Board.
“The Respondent is expected to know that where a party claims to own any Copyright to an audio-visual work, then such a party must have the requisite registration documents from the Kenya Copyright Board and the Kenya Film and Classification Board,” stated the tribunal.
Music producers win in Safaricom’s Skiza Tunes millions
In November, Safaricom suffered a setback after the High Court rejected its attempt to block five producers from suing the company for allegedly profiting from over 400 of their songs, sold on its Skiza platform.
The producers went to court in February of last year, accusing the telecom giant of making profits from their songs without paying them any royalties.
The producers, Jacob Otieno Odhiambo alias Jacky B, Brian Otieno (Bizzy B), Bernard Bulimwa (Teddy B), Denis Ihaji (Ihaji Made It), and Mombasa-based John Kagimbi (Producer Totti), filed the suit through an agency, IP Advisory and Management Service Limited (IPAS). They accuse the telecom of copyright infringement.
Safaricom sought to have the entire case dismissed, insisting that IPAS had no legal standing to sue on behalf of the five producers, who appear in the case as interested parties.
The company argued that its contractual obligations lie not with IPAS but with third-party Content Service Providers, entities licensed by the Communications Authority of Kenya, who provided the songs sold on Skiza. Safaricom further argued that because the producers had not registered their works, they had no enforceable rights to claim.
But the High Court ruled that Safaricom’s explanations fell short, thus allowing the case to proceed with pre-trials and ta rial schedule for this year.
“Striking out a case is draconian, and the court should always strive to sustain it. The court should not strike out a suit if there is a cause of action with some chance of success. The power to strike, but a suit should only be used in plain and obvious cases and with extreme caution. The power should only be used in cases that are clear and beyond doubt. On grounds stated by the defendant (Safaricom), upon careful consideration, the court is not convinced. A close interrogation of the plaint shows and discloses a reasonable cause of action, being infringement of the interested parties' Copyright rights,” noted the court.
