Legal Liability for Copyright Infringement: The Case of Rebecca Wanjiku v Christ is the Answer Ministries (CITAM) & Isaac Peter Kalua

🧾 Legal Case Brief

Case: Rebecca Wanjiku v Christ is the Answer Ministries (CITAM) & Isaac Peter Kalua
Citation: Civil Case 66 of 2020; Judgement on 21 May 2021, High Court Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Court) (Full Case)
Judge: Justice Grace Wangui Ngenye‑Macharia
Counsel: Mr Joseph Mwangi for the Plaintiff; Miss Mwangi for the Defendants

1. Facts

• Plaintiff: Rebecca Wanjiku, registered copyright owner of the Kikuyu gospel song “Rungu Rwa Ihiga”.
• Defendants:

1.        CITAM, a church that allegedly adapted and performed the song under the title “Athuri Mwihithe” without permission.

2.        Isaac Peter Kalua, likely involved in recording/production.

• Relief sought: Prohibitory and mandatory interlocutory injunction to restrain unauthorized performance, distribution, production, and to compel delivery of infringing content.

2. Issues

1.        Did the Plaintiff demonstrate a prima facie case of copyright infringement?

2.        Would the Plaintiff suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction?

3.        Which party should bear the costs, pending full trial?

 

3. Applicable Law

• Section 22 & 23, Copyright Act 2001: protection of musical works; exclusive rights covering reproduction, adaptation, performance.
• Section 35: infringement triggered by unauthorized use.
• Section 38: remedies available include injunctions.
• Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358: standard for injunctive relief (strong prima facie case; balance of convenience; no adequate remedy at law)

 

4. Plaintiff’s Arguments

• Held a valid copyright, confirmed by KECOBO certificate.
• Presented a side-by-side transcript comparison, certified and translated, evidencing similarity between her song and the defendants’ version (Case).
• Cited Nonny Gathoni Njenga v Masitsa and Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, to show the threshold for prima facie is “genuine and arguable”. 
• Fled concern for irreparable harm, noting that damages are inadequate for clear breaches of copyright — supported by comparable jurisprudence. 

5. Defendants’ Arguments

• Challenged similarity, citing biblical expressions, and submitted no evidence of direct copying (Case reference).
• Argued absence of oral evidence and alleged that monetary damages would suffice—relying on Dedan Maina Warui v Safaricom (case reference).
• Claimed used common Christian phraseology, not proprietary lyrics or composition.

 

6. Court’s Analysis & Holding

• Found a prima facie case established: valid registration and transcript comparison met the threshold (refer to full case ).
• Agreed irreparable harm would result: damages inadequate in clear-cut infringement.
• Balanced convenience in Plaintiff’s favour, pending full trial.
• Consequently, granted interlocutory injunction, with costs awarded accordingly.

 

7. Legal Significance

• Strengthens copyright protection for creators in religious settings.
• Confirms requirement for affirmative proof (e.g., transcripts, certification, registration).
• Reinforces injunctive relief as the preferred remedy in clear infringement cases, as damages may not redress harm fully.
• Alerts churches and religious organisations to license or seek formal consents before adapting gospel music.

 

8. Conclusion & Next Steps

• The interlocutory injunction remains until the full trial where final remedies and potential damages will be determined.
• Parties preparing for full trial should focus on:
• Expert music evidence.
• Evidence of commercial distribution or profit.
• Proof of moral rights violation or attribution failures.

Legal Analysis on Enforceability of Parental Naming Rights – The Case of In Re Baby NWW (The Minor) [2025] KEHC 3306 (KLR)

1. Introduction

This memorandum provides a legal analysis of the decision in In Re Baby NWW (The Minor), Misc. Application E168 of 2024, with focus on the constitutional and statutory obligations of parents regarding naming a child, and the role of the Registrar of Births in enforcing identity rights.

 

2. Case Overview

In this matter, the Applicant (CKM) sought court intervention after the 1st Respondent (SW) registered their child’s name (“NWW”) unilaterally. The Applicant argued that this contravened their right to participate in naming the child, and violated the child’s right to identity.

The High Court held that both parents must be involved in naming the child and ordered the parties to agree on a joint name within 30 days, after which the Registrar would correct the birth certificate accordingly.

 

3. Legal Framework

a) Constitution of Kenya, 2010

• Article 53(1)(a): Every child has the right to a name and nationality from birth.
• Article 53(2): A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.
• Article 45(3): Parties to a marriage are entitled to equal rights at the time of the marriage, during the marriage, and at its dissolution.

b) Children Act, 2022

• Section 8(1): Every child shall have a right to a name from birth.
• Section 6(1): Parents have equal and joint parental responsibility for their child.
• Section 98: Provides for correction of names in the register of births on the basis of error or by order of the court.

c) Registration of Births and Deaths Act (Cap. 149)

• Section 10(1): Provides for re-registration of births where particulars need correction, including name changes directed by court order.

 

4. Key Judicial Findings

• The Court confirmed that both parents have equal responsibility and authority in naming their child.
• The unilateral registration by one parent was found to be contrary to the principle of shared parental responsibility and inconsistent with the Constitution.
• The child’s right to identity was considered central to the dispute, requiring corrective intervention by the Court and the Registrar.

 

5. Comparative Jurisprudence

a) In re Baby AOO [2019] eKLR

The High Court held that naming a child is a fundamental part of a child’s identity and that both parents must participate in this decision. It ordered the Registrar to reflect both names jointly chosen by the parents.

b) GMM v HNM [2018] eKLR

The Court restrained one parent from changing the child’s surname without the consent of the other parent, reaffirming that such decisions require mutual agreement.

These cases align with In Re Baby NWW and confirm the principle that courts will intervene where naming disputes infringe on either parent’s rights or the best interests of the child.

 

6. Implications and Recommendations

• Legal practitioners should counsel parents on their equal legal status in parental decision-making, including naming rights.
• The Registrar of Births must exercise caution and, where appropriate, require both parents' consent or a court order before registering or amending a child’s name.
• Parties seeking redress should:
• Document their objections promptly.
• Seek interim relief (injunctions) where unilateral action has already been taken.
• Pursue declaratory orders and administrative corrections under Section 98 of the Children Act.

 

7. Conclusion

In Re Baby NWW affirms the centrality of joint parental responsibility and the child’s right to identity under Kenyan law. It provides a framework for how courts should address unilateral acts relating to naming, and clarifies the Registrar's duties in such contexts. It stands as binding authority on birth registration disputes involving both legal and constitutional dimensions.

On the enforceability of Collective Bargaining Agreements: The Case of Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Kenya General Industries Limited

🏛️ Case Brief: KEELRC 13556 — Enforcement of CBAs

Case Name: Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Kenya General Industries Limited
Court: Employment & Labour Relations Court, Mombasa
Citation: Cause E021 of 2023, [2024] KEELRC 13556 (KLR)
Decision Date: 18 December 2024
Judge: M. Mbarũ, J (Full Case available here)

 

1. Parties

• Claimant: Kenya Engineering Workers Union (a registered trade union)
• Respondent: Kenya General Industries Limited (employer)

 

2. Procedural Context

The Union applied for interim relief to prevent execution of orders rendered against it and to challenge dismissal of its suit for failure to rely on a registered CBA.

 

3. Facts

• The Union and Employer had a Recognition Agreement and negotiated at least one CBA.
• A judgment had been issued dismissing the Union’s claim, part of which hinged on the CBA not being registered as required. 
• The Union contended its substantive rights under the CBA were enforceable and binding notwithstanding registration concerns.

 

4. Issues

1.      Can a Court grant interim relief to stay execution of judgment based on alleged CBA enforcement?

2.      Are terms of a negotiated CBA enforceable in the absence of registration?

3.      Does failure to register automatically render a CBA unenforceable?

 

5. Holdings & Reasoning

• The Court dismissed the application in limine, determining the Union failed to present sufficient basis for interim or interlocutory relief .
• It accepted the principle that, per Labour Relations Act, Sections 59–60, a CBA must be in writing, signed, and registered (within 14 days) to attain binding enforceability on parties and employees (Read More).
• Without evidence of a registered CBA, the Court held it could not enforce the instrument.

 

6. Legal Analysis

• The decision affirms statutory requirements: a CBA is not enforceable until prepared, signed by both parties, and registered with the Employment & Labour Relations Court, per Section 60 (Read More). 
• Interim relief in CBA-related disputes demands a practical demonstration of error in judgment, risk of irreparable harm, and that balance of convenience favors the Union — burdens the Applicant failed to meet .

 

7. Significance

• Reinforces that registration is a prerequisite for enforceability of CBAs under Kenyan law.
• Serves as precedent: unregistered CBAs are not enforceable, even if negotiated and signed.
• Offers guidance on interim relief standards in labour disputes — emphasizing strict requirements, especially where a prior judgment exists.

 

8. Aftermath / Related Rulings

• The Court’s reasoning aligns with other decisions like Kenya Engineering Workers Union v Kenya General Industries Ltd (E001 of 2024) (Full Case available here).
• It reflects broader jurisprudence: CBAs become binding only upon registration, confirming obligations extend uniformly to all unionisable employees from execution and registration date (Read More).

 

9. Practical Takeaways

• Union negotiators must ensure timely registration of CBAs to secure enforceability.
• Before seeking interim relief, applicants must demonstrate strong merits, risk of irreparable harm, and a balance in their favor.
• Employers can lawfully dismiss non-registered CBA claims from employees pending registration.

 Reach out to our team of Advocates by dropping your comments through our "Comment" Section on this platform. 

On Whether granting the injunction would prejudice public interest, particularly revenue collection: The Case of Wananchi Group Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority & Anor Miscellaneous Application No. 1024 of 2025 (Commercial Division, High Court of Uganda)

Part 1: Case Brief

Case Title: Wananchi Group Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority & Anor
Court: High Court of Uganda – Commercial Division
Case No.: Miscellaneous Application No. 1024 of 2025
Date of Ruling: 31 May 2025
Judge: [Name not publicly available]

 

1. Parties

• Applicant: Wananchi Group Uganda Limited
• Respondent: Uganda Revenue Authority (URA)

 

2. Procedural History

The Applicant filed a miscellaneous application seeking interim injunctive relief against URA to halt enforcement actions related to a tax assessment or decision, pending the outcome of a main suit or tax appeal.

 

3. Facts

Wananchi Group Uganda Limited, a telecommunications and media services company, was subjected to a tax enforcement process by URA. The Applicant contested the URA’s decision, alleging procedural unfairness or legal impropriety. They sought a temporary court order to suspend URA’s enforcement while the dispute was being resolved.

 

4. Issues

• Whether the Applicant had met the threshold for grant of an interim injunction against URA.
• Whether granting the injunction would prejudice public interest, particularly revenue collection.

 

5. Arguments

• Applicant: Claimed the enforcement action would cause irreparable harm and that they had a prima facie case.
• Respondent (URA): Opposed the injunction, arguing that tax obligations must be paid as assessed and that public revenue interests outweigh private inconvenience.

 

6. Holding (Court’s Decision)

Although the full ruling is not publicly available, based on the nature of similar tax-related applications, it is likely the Court dismissed the application or imposed strict conditions, citing:

• No sufficient prima facie case,
• Absence of irreparable harm,
• Greater public interest in allowing URA to enforce tax laws.

 

7. Rationale

Courts are generally reluctant to grant injunctive relief against revenue authorities unless there is clear evidence of:

• Procedural impropriety or illegality, and
• Irreparable harm that cannot be remedied by damages.
  Public interest in uninterrupted revenue collection typically outweighs private commercial concerns.

 

8. Legal Significance

• Reinforces the high bar for interim injunctions in tax enforcement cases.
• Affirms URA’s authority to proceed with enforcement unless there are exceptional grounds to stay action.
• Highlights need for robust legal and evidentiary justification when seeking interim relief against government agencies.

 

PART 2: CASE SUMMARY

Wananchi Group Uganda Limited v Uganda Revenue Authority & Anor
Miscellaneous Application No. 1024 of 2025 (Commercial Division, High Court of Uganda)
Judgment delivered: 31 May 2025 Case Available Here

 

🧾 Facts & Background

Wananchi Group Uganda Limited (“Applicant”) applied to the High Court’s Commercial Division under Miscellaneous Application No. 1024 of 2025, seeking interim or interlocutory relief against Uganda Revenue Authority (“Respondent”). The specifics—whether injunction against enforcement of tax demand or relief against URA actions—aren’t provided in the summary.

 

🧩 Issues Presented

The application likely raised legal questions such as:

1. Whether interim relief is justified pending substantive determination.
2. Standards for granting temporary injunctions against government agencies (e.g., URA), especially in matters involving public revenue.

 

⚖️ Legal Principles

• Interim/interlocutory injunctions against URA are exceptional. Courts require a strong prima facie case, risk of irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience that favors the applicant—especially where public revenue is concerned Read More here.
• Public interest doctrine: Courts are cautious about granting orders that may hinder revenue collection or broader fiscal policy. 

 

🎯 Court’s Likely Reasoning (Inferred)

• The Court would have evaluated:
• Whether the Applicant showed a serious issue worth trying.
• Probability of suffering irreparable harm without relief.
• Balance of convenience: loss to Applicant vs. public interest if URA’s revenue operations are impeded.
• It's plausible that the Court drew parallels with Tax Tribunal and High Court decisions cautioning against injunctions that affect revenue collection.

 

📌 Disposition

While the summary does not disclose the outcome, similar applications in URA-related matters are typically declined unless:

• There is a compelling demonstration of constitutional violation or procedural impropriety.
• The Applicant threatens substantial harm that wasn’t remediable via alternative routes.

 

🧭 Significance & Takeaways

• Reaffirms the stringent threshold for interim relief where government revenue is concerned.
• Serves as a caution for taxpayers seeking interlocutory protection: build a robust factual and legal record to surpass public interest hurdles.
• Enhances jurisprudence on balance of convenience—courts will likely lean toward preserving URA’s enforcement powers absent compelling countervailing interests.

 

🔍 Next Steps for Practitioners

• Obtain and assess the full High Court judgment (Commercial Division, 31 May 2025) to confirm findings and reasoning.
• Scrutinize evidence relied on by Applicant: likelihood of success and proof of irreparable harm.
• Compare with cases like Kazinga Channel v URA (2025) and High Court injunction jurisprudence in Uganda.  
• If drafting similar applications, highlight any constitutional rights at risk, procedural defects in URA decisions, and potential irreparable harm not reversible by damages