It is a big win for Genge music icon Nonini after the High Court upheld a Sh 4 million award against Sylvix Electronics for illegally using his song “Wee Kamu.”
In alandmark judgment by Justice Linus P Kassan not only maintained the substantial damages for the artist born Hubert Nakitare but also set important precedents about who bears responsibility when copyrighted material is published without authorization on social media platforms.
While content creator Brian Mutinda walked away cleared of liability, the ruling represents a major win for Nonini and the broader creative industry in protecting intellectual property rights.
The facts of the infringement were never in dispute.
A video featuring Nonini’s popular track had been posted on Sylvix Electronics’ social media account without the musician’s consent, clearly violating his exclusive rights to control how his music is used.
Justice Kassan was unequivocal about the violation that: “The evidence on record clearly indicate that the Plaintiff’s song had a copyright or license which was infringed. This is not disputed by either of the parties.”
The court heard that Nonini had properly registered his copyright for “Wee Kamu” and produced a certificate proving his ownership.
“The song ‘Wee Kamu’ belonged to the Plaintiff and he produced a certificate to prove this,” the judge confirmed.
The disputed video, which was screened during court proceedings, depicted Mutinda welcoming a lady to watch a branded television screen while Nonini’s song played in the background, featuring the lyrics “leo niko kwa keja sitoki hapa, kwa hivyo ukitaka wee kamu.”
What made this case particularly significant was the court’s analysis of who should bear responsibility when content is modified and published on digital platforms.
The video appeared on Sylvix Electronics’ account, not on Mutinda’s personal social media. This distinction proved critical to the court’s reasoning.
Justice Kassan posed the central question: “Does the 1st Appellant( the content creator0 have authority to post videos to the 2nd Respondent electronic account?”
The answer shaped the entire judgment. Without evidence that Mutinda controlled Sylvix Electronics’ social media presence or authorized the posting, the court found it unjust to hold him personally liable.
“This therefore means that the Appellant did not have control on the 2nd Defendant account and this being the case, the 2nd Defendant can post anything he/it wants,” Justice Kassan found.
“Should the Appellant be punished for what the 2nd Defendant has posted in its account?”The judge then posed.
C
The ruling has significant implications for Kenya’s booming content creation industry.
Justice Kassan warned that holding creators liable for unauthorized modifications by third parties could stifle creative expression.
“It is true that in this era of technology, many young men and women are engaging into the business of content creation,” the judge observed.
“If their contents are synchronized and posted illegally by other institutions without their consent, should they still be found liable?
To me, this will greatly affect art or music in general.”
The court rejected the trial magistrate’s conclusion that Mutinda must have added the song simply because he appeared in the video, calling such reasoning “subjective and imagination that is bereft of evidence.”
In a particularly memorable phrase, Justice Kassan added: “no one, even the devil can read the mind of a man.”
While clearing Mutinda, the High Court maintained the full Sh 4 million award against Sylvix Electronics, finding it both reasonable and appropriate.
“The conclusion of the above is that this Appeal succeeds as against the Appellant,” Justice Kassan ruled, before directing that “this award shall only be against the 2nd Respondent.”
The company was also ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, compounding its financial liability.
Critically, Sylvix Electronics failed to participate in either the original proceedings or the appeal, leaving unanswered how Nonini’s copyrighted song ended up synchronized with content on its platform.
“The Second Defendant did not participate in the lower Court proceedings and in this Appeal,” the judge noted.
For Nonini, one of the architects of Kenya’s Genge music movement, the judgment validates years of advocacy for stronger artist protections.
The Sh 4 million award sends a clear message that Kenyan courts will enforce copyright laws and impose meaningful penalties on violators.
