They wanted the court to prevent Safaricom Ltd, Google (YouTube), and others from collecting or dealing with royalties in relation to the artists Joseph Kiambukuta Londa, aka Josky Kiambukuta, and Joseph Kanyinda Mpoyi, aka Djo Mpoyi. < / p>
The two singers, songwriters and performers were members of TPOK Jazz and died in 2021 and 1993 respectively.
The case was in 2020 by Hellen Wilfrida Arika at Sysera Milani Ignarce and Eric Sentama Mpoyi, son by Djo Mpoyi., who has since passed away.
Ms. Arika claimed that she had the power of attorney given to her by Kiambukuta and Eric Mpoyi with the right to sue and to sue the musical and artistic rights of the two artists defend. Milani and Mpoyi sued as administrators of the estate.
But Judge David Majanja ruled that Ms. Arika no longer has authority over Kiambukuta and Djo Mpoyi. This is because that authority expires with the death of the donor.
“She is unable to uphold this lawsuit because of the powers given to her by the personal representatives of the deceased artists,” Judge Majanja said.
It was made when ruling on some companies’ objections to the lawsuit.
The sued companies are Tamasha Corporation Ltd, Liberty Africa, Xpedia, Safaricom, Kenya Association of Music Producers, Google LLC (YouTube), Mdundo Kenya, Boom Play and Apple (iTunes).
The judge also stated that plaintiffs were unable to pursue the case as the personal representatives of the two musicians under the Kenyan Inheritance law.
In addition, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is neither a Commonwealth country nor approved for such legal review.
“This result (the lawsuit is striking) is drastic , but required by law and statutes, ”said R ichterin Majanja.
“I would like to urge the office of the responsible minister, the attorney general, to examine the possibility of enacting non-Commonwealth countries, especially those with which Kenya has close regional relations, such as provided for in Section 77 (1) of the Law on Inheritance Law. “
The plaintiffs had sought damages and payment of funds that were collected as royalties from the musical works of the artists.
They had accused the companies of the economic and intellectual property rights of the artists violated.
But Judge Majanja ruled that plaintiffs failed to define the specific intellectual property rights that were violated and how the rights were violated.
” There is one serious flaw in the plaintiffs’ case. They have not brought forward any concrete facts showing how each of the defendants committed the offending acts, “said the judge.
The defendants had denied the alleged violations.