On May 16, 2022, the award-winning Kenyan band Sauti Sol issued a stern statement via Twitter/X, alleging a significant copyright infringement by the Azimio la Umoja-One Kenya Coalition. According to the statement, the coalition had used the band’s hit song, “Extravaganza,” as a soundtrack for a video unveiling their presidential running mate without obtaining the necessary consent. Sauti Sol asserted that this was a flagrant disregard of their property rights and freedom of association, vowing to seek a legal remedy.
This statement kicked up a digital storm, exposing a massive gap between public perception and the technical realities of intellectual property law.
The reaction was swift and polarized. On social media, Azimio supporters hit back, alleging that Sauti Sol had no room to complain because they had previously sampled older songs.
Others argued that since Raila Odinga’s team had paid the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) for a general license, the band was simply chasing clout.
The backlash even took a financial toll; reports indicated a temporary dip in the group’s YouTube subscribers as disgruntled fans hit the “unsubscribe” button.
In the face of this cancel culture, lead singer Bien-Aimé Baraza remained defiant, dismissing those leaving with the quip, “Time yao imefika”.
KECOBO vs. MCSK
The controversy highlighted a deep-seated confusion among the bodies charged with protecting Kenyan artists.
On one side, the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK), through CEO Ezekiel Mutua, argued that Sauti Sol had no case.
MCSK maintained that the coalition had paid the required fees and that, as a Collective Management Organization (CMO), it had the authority to license such usage on behalf of its members.
However, the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO), the state corporation that oversees all copyright matters in Kenya, firmly disagreed.
Also Read: High Court Bars MCSK from Collecting Royalties in Landmark Ruling
KECOBO Executive Director Edward Sigei clarified that while Azimio held a Public Performance License, that license only allowed them to play music at rallies and live events. It did not cover the “synchronization” of music with visual images in a recorded video.
Despite the noise, the Sauti Sol controversy never received a definitive judicial ruling. It lingered as a cultural flashpoint, symbolic and unresolved.
That confusion persisted until July 2025, when the High Court finally rendered a judgment clarifying the issue in Wanjiku v. Christ Is the Answer Ministries (CITAM) & Another [2025] KEHC 8774 (KLR).
Wanjiku v. CITAM
The dispute arose when a gospel artist discovered that CITAM’s Men’s Chorale had performed, recorded, and uploaded a rendition of her song Rungu Rwa Ihiga on YouTube, retitled Athuri Mwihithe.
She alleged that the church had copied her lyrics, melody, and rhythm without authorization. Like many institutions before it, the church believed it was on safe ground.
The song, they argued, drew from biblical themes, used common Christian phrases, and lacked sufficient originality. Any similarity, they said, was incidental. In short, the work belonged to “everyone.” The High Court was unmoved.
In a judgment that cut through years of misunderstanding, the court reaffirmed a basic but often ignored principle: context does not dilute copyright. Whether a song is played at a political rally or sung from a church pulpit, creative works remain protected property under the Copyright Act (Cap 130, Laws of Kenya).
Central to the court’s reasoning was Section 22A(3) of the Act, which provides that a certificate of registration issued by the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) is prima facie (at first sight) evidence of authorship and ownership.
Also Read: Govt Gazettes New 2026 Tariffs for Music and Audio-Visual Enterprises
The plaintiff produced a registration certificate dated January 2011. That single document shifted the burden of proof squarely onto the defendants, a burden they could not discharge.
The court went further, dismantling several myths that have long plagued public understanding of copyright law.
First, it rejected the idea that infringement must be extensive to be actionable. Copyright protection turns on substantiality, not duration.
Even a partial use can infringe if it appropriates the “heart” or core message of a work. The court found that the church’s rendition reproduced the distinctive expression of the original song, not merely its theme.
Second, the judgment demolished the casual invocation of “folklore” as a defense. For a work to be treated as folklore or public domain, there must be credible evidence that it pre-exists individual authorship.
Borrowing a biblical reference or a commonly used phrase does not erase the originality of a specific musical arrangement, lyrical structure, or creative expression.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the court dismissed the notion that non-commercial or religious use is automatically excusable.
While CITAM may not have sold the recording, uploading it to YouTube constituted unauthorized reproduction and distribution. In the digital age, visibility itself has value, and creators retain the exclusive right to control how their work circulates, regardless of the user’s motive.
The consequence was significant. The court awarded the artist Ksh 1.5 million in general damages, even without proof of actual financial loss.
This was not merely compensation; it was a statement. The judiciary signaled that creative dignity matters and that infringement is not a harmless technicality.
Lack of Civic Education
Seen against the backdrop of the Sauti Sol controversy, the Wanjiku v. CITAM decision feels like a long-overdue answer to a question Kenyans have been circling for years: Who really controls music once it leaves the studio? The answer, now unmistakably, is the creator, unless they expressly say otherwise.
The judgment also casts new light on the uneasy relationship between KECOBO and Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) such as MCSK. While CMOs play an important role in administering public performance rights, they do not automatically control all aspects of an artist’s work.
Rights such as synchronization and the use of music in audiovisual recordings often remain with the artist unless expressly assigned.
Ultimately, both the Sauti Sol uproar and the CITAM judgment point to the same conclusion: that Kenya suffers from a profound deficit in civic education on intellectual property. Artists often do not understand the full bundle of rights they own.
Institutions often assume that payment to an intermediary, or the nobility of their purpose, excuses them from seeking proper authorization.
As Kenya moves deeper into the digital economy, where every phone is a studio and every platform a broadcaster, the era of “borrowing” music without a license is over. What Sauti Sol sparked in the court of public opinion, the High Court has now provided persuasive clarification.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
