Premium
Court rejects plea, allows five producers to sue over Skiza Tunes Millions
Local artistes demonstrate outside Malindi Court of Appeal in Kilifi County on March 3, 2017, over a dispute involving Skiza tune royalties between them, CMOs, and Safaricom.
A storm continues to brew in the corridors of justice, stirred by a battle over 400 songs said to be worth millions.
The clash pits telecom giant Safaricom against five renowned music producers.
What began as a quiet legal scuffle in early February this year has now swelled into a full-blown courtroom showdown.
In the latest twist, Safaricom has suffered a setback after the High Court rejected its attempt to block the producers from suing the company for allegedly profiting from their music, sold on its Skiza platform, without paying a cent in 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 outright copyright infringement.
They claim that they recently discovered their songs have been spinning revenue for Safaricom through Skiza without their knowledge, consent, or licensing agreements. Not only that, they say no royalties have been issued in return. In their view, the company has been feasting on their composition rights without ever coming to the table.
On February 18, 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 to obtain rights from copyright owners for works used on Skiza. In its argument, IPAS isn’t a content provider licensed by CAK.
Safaricom acknowledged that the Copyright Act requires it to enter into agreements with artistes, but maintained that the sheer volume of creators makes it impractical and challenging for it to establish one-on-one contracting with all the copyright owners to obtain their permission. The telecom giant also argued that the suit does not merit attention by the court, as it is of no public interest.
But the High Court, in its latest directive, ruled that Safaricom’s explanations fell short, thus allowing the lawsuit to stay very much alive and the stakes higher than ever.
“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.”
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
