Content creator Brian Mutinda has taken the bold step of appealing a Milimani Chief Magistrate’s Court ruling that ordered him to pay Sh4 million in damages to popular Kenyan rapper Hubert Nakitare, also known as Nonini. The original ruling, which was delivered in September 2024 by Chief Magistrate Hosea Ng’ang’a, found Mutinda and Syinix Electronics Ltd guilty of infringing on Nonini’s copyright by using his song “Wee Kamu” in an online advertisement without the artist’s consent.
Nonini, who is a pioneer of the Kenyan genge music genre, has made headlines not just for his music but also for his staunch defense of intellectual property rights. The case between Nonini and Mutinda serves as a cautionary tale for content creators, influencers, and brands that operate in the increasingly competitive and dynamic digital marketing space. As more businesses rely on social media for advertisements, the legal battle raises important questions about intellectual property rights, copyright laws, and the potential liabilities that come with the misuse of creative works.
Background of the Case
The dispute began when Nonini filed a copyright infringement case against Brian Mutinda and Syinix Electronics Ltd. In his lawsuit, Nonini argued that the defendants used his song “Wee Kamu” in a promotional video without his authorization. The song was featured as the background music for an online advertisement produced by Syinix Electronics Ltd, a company that manufactures and sells consumer electronics. Brian Mutinda, a social media influencer and content creator, was allegedly involved in producing the infringing video.
The crux of the lawsuit revolved around the fact that Nonini did not consent to the use of his song in the advertisement, making it a clear case of copyright infringement. In the initial ruling delivered in March 2024, Chief Magistrate Hosea Ng’ang’a awarded Nonini Sh1 million in damages. However, Mutinda contested the ruling, claiming that he was not given a fair opportunity to present his defense. He filed an appeal seeking to overturn the judgment and was granted permission to refile his defense.
In the subsequent hearing, Chief Magistrate Ng’ang’a revisited the case and increased the award from Sh1 million to Sh4 million, citing key factors such as Nonini’s clear ownership of the copyright to the song and the failure of Mutinda and Syinix Electronics Ltd to provide sufficient evidence absolving themselves of responsibility for the infringement.
Grounds of Appeal
On October 3, 2024, Mutinda officially filed an appeal with the High Court, outlining 12 grounds of grievance with the magistrate’s ruling. The primary focus of his appeal is the Sh4 million compensation awarded to Nonini, which Mutinda argues is both excessive and unjustified. In his court documents, Mutinda claims that the lower court made a significant error by awarding such a high amount without Nonini providing concrete evidence of the damages caused by the infringement.
Mutinda’s legal team has argued that the learned magistrate erred in both law and fact by increasing the original damages from Sh1 million to Sh4 million after an inter partes hearing, despite the plaintiff failing to present additional evidence to justify the increase. They assert that the court’s decision to escalate the damages was disproportionate, especially given the lack of tangible proof that Nonini suffered significant financial loss or reputational damage due to the infringement.
According to Mutinda’s lawyers, the court did not consider the full scope of their defense. One of their key arguments is that Mutinda’s involvement in the video production was limited to providing raw footage, and that he did not have direct control over the inclusion of Nonini’s music. However, Chief Magistrate Ng’ang’a ruled that both Mutinda and Syinix Electronics Ltd were responsible for the infringement because they failed to provide evidence showing that their involvement was unrelated to the final version of the infringing video.
Mutinda contests this aspect of the ruling, claiming that the court placed undue weight on his connection to the video while neglecting the actual role he played in its production. He has called for the High Court to reexamine the case and reduce or dismiss the Sh4 million in damages imposed on him.
Key Issues Addressed in the Magistrate’s Ruling
In his ruling, Chief Magistrate Ng’ang’a made a thorough analysis of several key issues at the heart of the case. One of the most significant questions was whether Nonini owned the copyright to the song “Wee Kamu.” After reviewing the evidence, the court confirmed that Nonini was the rightful copyright holder, and thus, his intellectual property rights had indeed been violated by the unauthorized use of his song in the commercial.
Another critical issue was determining who was responsible for publishing the infringing video. The court found that Syinix Electronics Ltd was responsible for publishing the advertisement, which featured Nonini’s song without permission. Although Mutinda argued that his role was limited to providing raw footage, the court held that he could not escape liability for the infringement because there was no concrete evidence supporting his claim that he had no involvement in the final editing and publication of the video.
In light of these findings, the court concluded that both Mutinda and Syinix Electronics Ltd were equally liable for the copyright infringement and, therefore, jointly responsible for compensating Nonini for the unauthorized use of his song.
Implications of the Appeal
Mutinda’s decision to challenge the ruling in the High Court has reignited public interest in the case, as it could set an important legal precedent for future copyright disputes in Kenya. The outcome of the appeal will be closely watched by musicians, content creators, advertisers, and legal professionals alike, as it may offer new insights into how courts in Kenya handle copyright infringement cases in the digital age.
For content creators and influencers, the case underscores the importance of understanding intellectual property laws and obtaining proper licenses before using copyrighted materials in commercial projects. With the rise of digital marketing and social media platforms, more creators are becoming involved in producing advertisements, often without fully understanding the legal implications of using copyrighted music, images, or videos.
Similarly, for artists like Nonini, the case highlights the ongoing challenges they face in protecting their intellectual property in an era where digital media is easily accessible and often misused. Many artists struggle to receive fair compensation for their work, and copyright infringement cases can be costly and time-consuming to pursue.
Conclusion
As Brian Mutinda takes his Sh4 million copyright ruling to the High Court, the legal battle between him and Nonini continues to shed light on the complexities of copyright law in Kenya. The case serves as a reminder that the unauthorized use of creative works can have serious legal consequences, and both artists and content creators must be vigilant in safeguarding their rights and responsibilities in the ever-evolving digital landscape.
The outcome of Mutinda’s appeal will be pivotal, not just for the parties involved, but for the broader creative industry in Kenya, as it could influence how future cases of copyright infringement are adjudicated. As the High Court prepares to hear the case, stakeholders across the industry will be watching closely to see how the court balances the interests of intellectual property owners and content creators in this landmark dispute.
