Kenyan content creator Brian Mutinda and electronics company Syinix have been ordered to pay rapper Hubert Mbuku Nakitare alias Nonini Ksh4 million in damages for using his song in a skit without his consent.
In a judgement delivered on Thursday, September 5, 2024, by Principal Magistrate Hosea Ng’ang’a of the Milimani Commercial Magistrate Court, the award stems from a case filed by Nonini in August 2022.
In his plaint, the rapper had sought compensation for c********************t, after alleging that Mutinda (first defendant) had used his 2002 hit Wee Kamu in a skit on his social media pages, which he (Nonini) interpreted as a commercial promotion for Syinix —the second defendant.
The principal magistrate cited that on or about June 27, 2022, while he (Nonini) was going through the timelines of his social media accounts, he came across a video of a short skit posted on Syinix’s Facebook page.
“The plaintiff avers that the video was created by the first defendant on his TikTok account and the same is referenced in the bottom left corner of the video. The plaintiff avers that the video was then reposted by the second defendant on its corporate account on Facebook,” Ng’ang’a said in the judgment.
“The plaintiff avers that his song entitled “We Kamu” was playing throughout the skit as the soundtrack. He avers that the video was posted by both defendants on their social media pages. He avers that the posts were captioned as follows: “Netflix and chill right. The all-new Synix U51 series has got you and bae this long holiday. #Syinix U51Series HomeCinemaExperience”. He asserts that the meaning of this caption is that the first defendant was promoting the second defendant’s TV products as its influencer.”
He said after his analysis, he found both defendants culpable of c********************t against Nonini.
“A declaration is hereby issued that the first and second defendants are jointly and severally liable for c********************t by i*****l synchronisation and i*****l publishing of the plaintiff’s song. The Plaintiff is awarded general damages in the sum of Ksh4,000,000 for c********************t. The plaintiff is awarded cost of the suit and interest from the date of this judgment.”
On his part, Nonini hailed the judgement, saying that intellectual property (IP) was like any other property, and thus it required protection.
“There are p****e out there who don’t see value in IP, and so they’re always going to have a problem. IP is like any other property. Protection of IP and copyright is a key aspect for economic development. But the most important thing about IP versus the creative expression is that copyright law was created not to stifle creativity, but to encourage creativity,” said Nonini.
