[2007] KEHC 3230 (KLR)
The court found that although the plaintiffs alleged copyright infringement and non-payment of royalties by the defendant, they failed to specifically plead and strictly prove special damages as required by law. The evidence regarding the number of records sold and the amount of royalties due was based on estimates...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3230 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Pritt Nyale; Plaintiff: Anwar Juma; Plaintiff: Alfred Ilambo; Plaintiff: Sammy Wanje; Plaintiff: Kenneth Nzaro; Plaintiff: Alfred Kuduku; Defendant: Polygram Records (EA) Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 3428 of 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- plaintiffs' suit dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Copyright Infringement, Royalties Dispute, Music Industry Contracts, Breach of Contract
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pritt Nyale
Plaintiff
Anwar Juma
Plaintiff
Alfred Ilambo
Plaintiff
Sammy Wanje
Plaintiff
Kenneth Nzaro
Plaintiff
Alfred Kuduku
Plaintiff
Polygram Records (EA) Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant infringed the plaintiffs. copyright in the song 'Harusi' by producing and distributing it without authority.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to royalties or damages for the alleged unauthorized production and distribution of their musical works.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs specifically pleaded and strictly proved special damages as required by law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the plaintiffs alleged copyright infringement and non-payment of royalties by the defendant, they failed to specifically plead and strictly prove special damages as required by law. The evidence regarding the number of records sold and the amount of royalties due was based on estimates and not supported by documentary proof. The court relied on established legal principles that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. In the absence of such proof, the plaintiffs' claim could not succeed, and the suit was dismissed. The court also noted the lack of evidence that the defendant company was still operating or could be traced, further...
Court Disposition
plaintiffs' suit dismissed
Orders
- The plaintiffs' suit is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 3428 of 1988
PRITT NYALE ANWAR JUMA ALFRED ILAMBO SAMMY WANJE KENNETH NZARO ALFRED KUDUKU………………………………………………….…PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
POLYGRAM RECORDS (EA) LIMITED………………......…...…DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs are a musical band carrying on business in Kenya in the name of FOREST PEOPLES’ BAND while the defendant is a company incorporated in Kenya and carries on business of producing and handling the distribution of records, tapes and cassettes in Kenya.
On the 1st April 1984 the defendant company and the plaintiff duly into entered and signed an agreement to produce and distribute the hit song “HARUSI” under the band’s own label or mark FPB 001 and not in any other form.
It was further agreed that the other compilations written by the band would be produced and distributed by the defendants under the defendant’s label namely POL but subject to royalties being paid to the plaintiff.
On 15th June 1984 the plaintiffs and the defendant signed an agreement terminating the 1st April 1984 Agreement. In breach of the said agreement of 1st April 1984 which was mutually terminated the defendant refused to pay royalties on the said musical works under the label and the same works are being sold without the plaintiffs’ authority. The defendants have further wrongfully and unlawfully continued to produce and market the song ‘HARUSI’ whose copyright exclusively belongs to the plaintiffs without any permission whatsoever.
The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant seeking:-
(i) An injunction to restrain the defendant from doing whether by itself, servants, agents or in any other way to produce and distribute the song “HARUSI” without the plaintiff’s authority,
(ii) An order for the delivery up of all the royalties due to them.
(iii) An enquiry into damages (including additional statutory damages) or at the plaintiff’s option an account of profits and payments of all sums found due taking such inquiry on account.
(iv) Costs and interest.
The defendant which seems to have relocated from Kenya could not be traced and it was served through the post C/of P.O. Box 30333 Nairobi. This was presumed proper service and the suit proceeded exparte since there was no appearance by the defendant.
Mr. Kimani learned counsel for the plaintiffs called the 1st plaintiff PRITT NYALE to give evidence on behalf of the other plaintiffs. He told the court that he is the leader of the FOREST PEOPLES BAND which has since disbanded due to lack of funds. They had produced some of the most popular songs i.e. Harusi, Kenya Nchi Nzuri, Hatosheki, Malaika, and Going to Music Land. Particularly “Harusi” was very popular and attracted many listeners including the defendants.
They entered into an agreement with the defendant to produce and distribute their records on payment of royalties which was agreed at Shs.10/= per record. He told the court that he knew the defendant had sold about 1,000. 000 copies of Going to Music Land and in all about 1,500,000 records were sold but he was not able to know the exact number of sales as the records of the sales were with the defendant and the figure he gave was just an estimate.
It is unfortunate that the plaintiffs were not able to get the record of the sales. This being a claim for special damages, the plaintiffs ought not only plead, but must prove their special damages. This was so stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of SHABANI V. NAIROBI CITY COUNCIL [1982-1988] 1KLR 681 when the following passage from Lord Goddard L CJ’s judgment in BONHAM V. HYDE PARK HOTEL LTD [1948] 64 TLR 117at 178 was approved:
“Plaintiffs must understand that, if they bring actions for damages, it is for them to prove their damages; it is not enough to write down particulars and, so to speak, throw them at the head of the court saying “This is what I have lost, I ask you to give me these damages. They have to prove it. The evidence in this case with respect to damages is extremely unsatisfactory.”
And in the case of DAVID KINYANJUI AND OTHERS V. MESHACK MONYORO – CIVIL APPEAL NO. 121 OF 1993. The Court of Appeal had this to say:-
This court has said in no uncertain terms in its earlier decisions that special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. Strict prove of special damages is necessary.
In the instant case they were neither specifically pleaded nor were they proved and therefore the plaintiff’s claim must fail and there is no evidence adduced to show that the defendant company is still operating 18 years along the line nor could it be traced.
For the above reasons the plaintiff’s suit fails and is dismissed. I make no order as to costs
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 23rd February, 2007.
………………….…
J.L.A. OSIEMO
JUDGE