Jemimmah Thiong’o sues Safaricom for Sh15 million

By Newsflash Writer

Veteran gospel singer Jemmimah Thiong’o, once a household name in Kenya’s music industry, has intensified a legal battle against telecommunications giant Safaricom over alleged copyright infringement.

The artist, whose spiritual hits such as Mipango Ya Mungu, Alinitua, Pendo la Ajabu, and Mganga once dominated local airwaves, claims Safaricom illegally profited from her work by distributing her music through its Skiza Tunes platform without her permission or compensation.

Filed at the Milimani Commercial High Court, the case has dragged on for nearly a decade, and a hearing is now scheduled for November.

Ms Thiong’o is seeking Sh15 million in damages, claiming she has never received any royalties from the commercial use of her music through Skiza Tunes—a service that allows subscribers to set ring-back tones using songs from various artists.

According to court filings, Ms Thiong’o retains the rights to 80 percent of her songs, while music producer Robert Kimanzi, popularly known as R Kay, holds the remaining 20 percent. Together, the pair asserts that they have never earned a single shilling from the usage of 39 of Thiong’o’s songs on the Skiza platform.

Represented by their lawyer, the duo accuses Safaricom of reproducing, modifying, distributing, and commercially exploiting their music without consent. The suit also names music aggregator Liberty Afrika Technologies and the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) as co-defendants. Ms Thiong’o argues that Safaricom should have performed due diligence to verify the true owners of the content before distributing it.

“The defendant has unjustly enriched itself by using our intellectual property without any form of authorization,” Thiong’o states in her court documents. She also claims that the unauthorized dissemination of her music has not only caused her financial losses but also irreparably damaged her professional image.

The singer says she has suffered mental distress and reputational harm due to her ongoing financial struggles—struggles that she attributes directly to the loss of potential revenue from her music. “I have faced ridicule and embarrassment from former clients and supporters who no longer take me seriously. My inability to profit from my music has caused both financial and personal harm,” she says.

A long legal journey with mounting losses

Thiong’o initially took legal action in 2016, estimating her losses at over Sh5 million at the time. She contends that the continued unauthorized sale of her music over the years has pushed the damages well beyond Sh15 million. In addition to financial compensation, she wants the court to order Safaricom to provide a full account of all revenues generated from her songs.

Prior to filing the suit, Thiong’o issued a demand letter to Safaricom in June 2015, seeking compensation. In its response, the telco, through its legal counsel Angela Karamba, denied any wrongdoing. According to Safaricom, it lawfully obtained the songs through a third-party content provider, Liberty Afrika Technologies, with whom Thiong’o allegedly had a valid contract.

Safaricom’s legal defense hinges on its agreements with music aggregators Cellulant Kenya Ltd and Liberty Afrika. These aggregators, known as premium rate service providers (PRSPs), reportedly supplied the music under non-exclusive and revocable licenses. A key piece of evidence submitted by Safaricom is a contract dated May 27, 2009, which the company says authorized it to distribute Thiong’o’s music.

Safaricom shifts blame

The telco argues that by entering into agreements with the PRSPs, Thiong’o and Kimanzi effectively transferred the rights to manage and distribute the music. “Safaricom offered only a portion of the plaintiffs’ songs on the Skiza Tunes platform based on assurances from the PRSPs that they had secured all necessary rights and licenses,” the company said in its defense.

Addressing another of Thiong’o’s claims—that her music was used in Safaricom’s Surf Na internet promotion—the company denied any such usage, saying the campaign did not rely on her songs in any way. Regarding royalties, Safaricom maintains that all payments from song sales were directed to the PRSPs, and if Thiong’o did not receive her share, she should take the matter up with them.

Safaricom also explained why some of Thiong’o’s songs were later pulled from the platform. According to the company, the deletions were carried out on March 6, 2023, following instructions from the PRSPs and a formal complaint from MCSK.

In a witness statement, Safaricom’s Angela Karamba defended the company’s approach of working with aggregators instead of artists directly. “Given the vast number of artists and the complexity of rights management, it is more practical for Safaricom to contract licensed intermediaries,” she said.

As the court prepares to hear the matter later this year, the case continues to spotlight the long-running tensions between Kenyan artists and digital distributors over copyright ownership, royalty payments, and fair compensation.