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.