The High Court has stopped Safaricom and Airtel from remitting Skiza and Hello tune revenues to collective management organisations (CMOs) pending the outcome of a case filed by two artistes.

Justice John Chigiti issued the order stopping the payments to CMOs, also referred to as Premium Rate Service Providers (PRSPs), until the case is determined.

The case was filed by artistes Justus Ngemu and Saul Esikuri against the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO), the Cabinet Secretary in charge of arts, and the Attorney General.

Safaricom and Airtel are listed as interested parties.

The artistes are challenging the continued remittance of ringback tune revenue to PRSPs despite amendments to the Copyright Act in 2022 requiring that artistes be paid directly.

Read More

  1. Miwani Sugar land row reignites as lawyer rejects Sh9,394-acre settlement
  2. Safaricom eyes partnerships on satellite internet amid pressure from Starlink
  3. Safaricom becomes first listed firm in EA to cross USD3 billion annual revenue mark

The amended law states that artistes should receive at least 52 per cent of the revenue, telecommunication firms 39.5 per cent, and PRSPs 8.5 per cent.

It also requires telecom firms to remit the artistes’ share directly to them.

“The gist of the Application before this court is that the applicant is seeking leave to commence judicial review proceedings. I am satisfied that the Applicants have made out a strong case to warrant the grant of the leave sought. I find that the Application has merit,” said Justice Chigiti.

The artistes said they tried to engage the government without success and claimed that “its only the telcos who are gaining financially to the disadvantage of the applicants.”

They argued that the failure to enforce the law has caused economic hardship to the music industry.

The Kenya Copyright Board opposed the application, saying: “The primary responsibility to enforce compliance with ring back tunes contracts lies with the parties to the agreement. These are; the artistes or copyright holder; Telecommunication operator and the premium rate service provider. There is no statutory enforcement mechanism or obligation placed on the Respondents to enforce the private contractual right under the Section.”

“Before seeking such a court remedy, the Applicant must prove that there is no other adequate alternative remedy available to them. In this case, the Applicant has failed to explore other legal avenues that could potentially resolve the issue at hand,” it added.

The court gave all parties 14 days to file responses and set the case for mention on July 7, 2025.