Endless wrangles in Kenya’s collective management system have made us all experts in copyright law. The thorny question of how and to what extent key players in the collective administration of copyright and related rights must comply with the Constitution remains a hotly debated topic. This brings us to a recent judgment by the High Court in the case of Laban Toto Juma & 4 Others v. Kenya Copyright Board & 2 Others Consolidated Kakamega Petition No. 3B of 2017 delivered on 13 July 2018. A copy of this High Court judgment is available here. Not surprisingly, both sides in this see-saw legal battle are claiming victory following the court’s final verdict. So, this blogpost will attempt to examine the key issues tackled by the court in its judgment as well as some of the questions that have been left unanswered.
The recently reported High Court case of Evans Gikunda v. Patrick Quarcoo & Two Others  was born out of a business deal gone bad. At the heart of this dispute is a music application (app) that the plaintiff (Gikunda) claims to have conceptualised, designed and developed between 2012 and 2016. However Gikunda joined the employ of the 2nd Defendant (Radio Africa Group Limited) in 2013 where the 1st Defendant (Quarcoo), the Chief Executive at Radio Africa, ‘persuaded Gikunda to partner with him to ensure that the product gets to market’.
According to Gikunda, Quarcoo proposed that that once Radio Africa’s Board of Directors sanctioned its participation in his app, they would share out the ownership of the app as follows: Radio Africa – 40%; Gikunda- 30%; Quarcoo- 20%; and the remaining 10% to a strategic partner. However, in mid-2016, Gikunda resigned from Radio Africa after which he alleges that Quarcoo and Radio Africa sold the app, without his knowledge, to the 3rd Defendant (Safaricom).
As many may already know, Safaricom, the largest mobile telecommunications company in Kenya is currently embroiled in a handful of intellectual property (read: copyright) law suits, with creators and innovators alike. See full list here. Recently, there have been some new developments in two of these cases, namely the M-Shwari and JB Maina cases.
To recap briefly, the M-shawri row arose late last year when Faulu Kenya claimed that it had pitched to Safaricom the idea of a mobile money service that allows users to save, borrow loans and earn interest using their mobile phones. On the other hand, the JB Maina case has been in court since 2010 when Safaricom was accused of copyright infringement in respect of musical works of JB Maina alleged to have been uploaded on Safaricom’s portals.
The Daily Nation now reports that the Court has declined to grant Faulu Kenya’s application for an interim injunction pending determination of its suit for breach of copyright and violation of trade secret. While this blogger is inclined to agree with this preliminary ruling by Justice Havelock, several concerns the learned judge’s reasoning on this case were raised.
Turning to the JB Maina case, a recent court ruling reported in full here has awarded limited Anton Piller orders to the plaintiff, JB Maina against Safaricom. The effect of these orders is that it allows JB Maina in the company of a copyright inspector to enter Safaricom’s premises, inspect its machines, take records, make copies of records for purposes of gathering and preserving evidence necessary to prove his claim. The court has also granted JB Maina a temporary injunction restraining Safaricom from dealing in JB Maina’s works, in addition to awarding JB Maina the costs of the motion to be paid by Safaricom.
This blogger will revisit this return of Anton Piller orders in Kenya’s IP litigation landscape in a subsequent post. However for the purposes of the JB Maina case, there are a couple of interesting questions that this blogger believes must be at the back of Safaricom’s mind. The first question is whether there is need to have such a complex web of relationships between the right holders (copyright owners); the music collecting societies (the copyright assignees); the content service providers and/or premium rate service providers (the middle men); and itself as a major user of copyright works. This first question requires Safaricom to think hard about eliminating the middle men altogether so as to deal directly either with the music collecting societies or the copyright owners themselves on an exclusive basis. The second question which flows from the first is whether the acts currently performed by Safaricom in respect to musical works and sound recordings ought to be licensed in the first place. This second question arises based on the various unlicensed rights currently being exploited by Safaricom, namely reproduction, communication to the public in addition to the performing right in the musical download.
At the very least, it is hoped that the final conclusion of both these Safaricom copyright suits may provide useful IP jurisprudence that will help settle some of the unanswered questions in Kenya.