Reginald Kings Ltd v Ziiki Holdings PVT Ltd (Civil Suit 674 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9152 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (25 June 2026) (Ruling)

Reginald Kings Ltd v Ziiki Holdings PVT Ltd (Civil Suit 674 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 9152 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (25 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9152 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Commercial and Tax Civil Suit 674 of 2025 RC Rutto, J June 25, 2026 Between Reginald Kings Limited Plaintiff and Ziiki Holdings Pvt Limited Defendant Ruling 1.For determination is the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 9th October, 2025, brought pursuant to Sections 37(1) and (2) of the Copyright Act Cap. 130, Sections 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The Applicant seeks, firstly, injunctive orders restraining the Respondent, its servants, agents, or any persons acting under its authority from infringing upon the Applicant’s copyright by distributing, selling, or storing any data relating to the Applicant’s sound recording musical works (the musical works), namely:i.Bounce - Lexsil (Ft Otile Brown) - Rz46465;ii.By Your Side - Lexsil - Rz47565;iii.Let Me Love You (Feat. Phina) Lexsil - Rz78918;iv.Terminator Lexsil - Rz57122;v.Down for Love Lexsil - Rz78925;vi.This Love Lexsil - Rz80061;vii.Away (Feat. Liya & Lira) Lexsil - Rz78923;viii.Everybody (Feat. Nadia Mukami) Lexsil - Rz78920;ix.Born Killers Lexsil - Rz78924;x.Don't Give Up (Feat. Jovial) Lexsil - Rz78919;xi.Tonight (Feat. Otile Brown) Lexsil - Rz78921; andxii.Your Body Lexsil - Rz48280.or any cover versions thereof pending the hearing and determination of this application and suit. 2.Secondly, the Applicant seeks orders authorising it, in the company of the inspector from the Copyright Board, to enter the Respondent’s premises situated at Park Suites, Parklands Road, Westlands, Nairobi County, and any other location within the Republic of Kenya during business hours, for the purposes of: inspecting all machines or systems storing the Applicant’s music data; taking records of such data; making copies of all Digital Service Provider Reports including, but not limited to, Alternative Distribution Alliance (ADA) Reports on Spotify, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Audio Mack Reports, Boomplay Music Reports, YouTube Reports, and Ring Back Tone Reports; and seizing or preserve any material constituting evidence of infringement for purposes of trial and safeguarding of vital evidence. 3.Thirdly, the Applicant seeks orders compelling the Respondent, its servants, or agents to take down all the Applicant’s sound recordings listed above (including any cover versions) from all digital service providers and streaming platforms, including but not limited to: Spotify; Audiomack; Boomplay Music; Apple Music; YouTube & YouTube Music; Social media platforms (Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp, TikTok); and Ring Back Tone services, pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The Applicant further prays that costs of the application be in the cause. 4.The Applicant is supported by the grounds on the face of the application, as well as the supporting and supplementary affidavits sworn by Reginald Noriega on 9th October, 2025, and 16th December, 2025, respectively. The Applicant contends that it is the lawful proprietor of the copyright rights in the sound recording and publishing rights of the musical works, having been duly registered and protected under the Copyright Act. 5.Further, the Applicant avers that in 2022, it entered into a content license agreement with the Respondent, together with a performing artist signed under the Applicant’s record label, for the distribution and monetisation of the musical works. The Applicant argues that in the course of the agreement, the parties executed an addendum authorising the Respondent to remix the musical works subject to specified terms and limitations. 6.The Applicant asserts that in 2025, it issued a termination notice through its advocates, which notice was acknowledged by the Respondent. Thereafter, a take-down notice was issued requiring the Respondent to remove the musical works from digital service providers and streaming platforms. It is the Applicant’s further case that the Respondent willfully and persistently ignored the said notice and continues the unauthorised distribution, monetising, and commercial exploitation of the Applicant’s musical works without its consent. The Applicant argues that the Respondent conduct amounts to acts of copyright infringement, passing off, and unjust enrichment, in breach of the Copyright Act. 7.Consequently, the Applicant contends that the Respondent’s deliberate and ongoing violations continue to cause irreparable harm to its reputation, economic rights, goodwill, and commercial standing. It maintains that it has established a strong prima facie case with a high probability of success; that the balance of convenience tilts heavily in its favour; and it is in the interest of justice and equity to grant injunctive orders. The Applicant further posits that the Respondent is in possession of critical documents, digital reports, and data evidencing ongoing infringement, including reports from digital service providers, and there is a real and imminent risk that such evidence may be concealed, tampered with, or destroyed unless preserved through the Anton Piller orders sought. 8.The application was opposed through a replying affidavit sworn by Abhinandan Bhardwaj on 23rd December, 2025, grounds of opposition dated 5th November, 2025, and submissions dated 18th March, 2026. The Respondent contends that the application is misconceived, frivolous and an abuse of the court process. 9.It is also the Respondent’s case that the Applicant has failed to satisfy the conditions for the grant of Anton Piller orders and in particular, has not demonstrated any imminent risk of destruction, concealment or tampering with evidence by the Respondent. The Respondent also argues that the orders sought are oppressive, invasive and disproportionate, and that if granted, they would unjustifiably disrupt the Respondent’s operations and violate the privacy and data protection rights of third parties. It maintains that the relevant digital distribution and accounting records are intact and can be obtained through ordinary court-supervised processes. 10.The Respondent also opposes the grant of injunctive orders and submits that pursuant to the tripartite agreement and addendum, it uploaded the musical works onto its digital platforms, collected revenue and rendered statements. This continued until the artist's representative wrote requested payment statements and content usage reports for purposes of clarifying payments due. The Respondent contends that this request marked the onset of a dispute between the Applicant and the artist regarding their respective entitlement under the agreement. It further, states that the dispute culminated in the issuance of a termination notice followed by the Applicant’s confirmation of termination of the agreement by an email dated 4th July, 2025. 11.The Respondent further argues that, following the termination notice, the artist engaged it directly regarding preservation of his catalogue and the handling of revenues, pending the resolution of the dispute between the artist and the Applicant over their respective contractual rights. It also asserts that the artist confirmed that the Applicant was a confirming party to the tripartite agreement and did not own or exclusively control the underlying rights to the musical works. The Respondent therefore contends that it acted at all material times under contractual authority, and in accordance with the Artist’s instructions, and that the real dispute is between the Applicant and the artist. 12.Against this background, the Respondent submits that the application is founded on allegations of copyright infringement, is premised on inaccurate and misleading assertions. It maintains that the musical works were lawfully distributed pursuant to a subsisting agreement and, following its termination, the artist expressly acknowledged and authorised the Respondent to continue distributing the works. Accordingly, the Respondent submits that the application failed to establish a prima facie case. 13.The Respondent also submits that the Applicants has failed to demonstrate that it will suffer any irreparable harm if the orders sought are not granted. It contends that any alleged loss is purely financial in nature, quantifiable, and therefore adequately compensable by an award of damages. It additionally argues that the balance of convenience tilted in its favour, as granting the orders sought would cripple its operations, compromise its business systems, expose sensitive commercial information, and occasion severe reputational and financial harm. 14.I note that although the Appellant initiated the process of filing the submissions on the Judiciary CTS, it was not completed, and the version on CTS is not accessible to this Court on account of lack of completeness in filing. Analysis 15.Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, evidence and written submissions filed in this matter, only two issues arise for consideration:i.whether the Applicant has established a proper case for the grant of injunctive orders; andii.whether it has satisfied the threshold for the grant of Anton Piller orders. 16.As regards the prayer for injunctions, the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions are well settled in Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358, where the court laid down the foundational test to guide courts in determining whether or not to grant a temporary injunctive relief as follows; The Applicant must;i.Show a prima facie case with a probability of success;ii.Demonstrate that it stands to suffer irreparable harm which cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages if the injunction is not granted.iii.If the court is in doubt, determine the matter on a balance of convenience. 17.A prima facie case is one that is genuine and arguable. While the Applicant is not required to conclusively prove its case at this interlocutory stage, it must place before the Court sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a right that has apparently been infringed. In Mrao Limited vs First American Bank of Kenya Limited & 2 others [2003] KECA 175 (KLR), and later in Nguruman Limited vs Nielsen & 2 others [2014] KECA 606 (KLR), the Court of Appeal elaborated that a prima facie case is one which, on the material presented, discloses a right that has been violated and which calls for an explanation or rebuttal from the other side. This requirement serves to ensure that the equitable remedy of injunction is not granted in weak or frivolous cases, but is reserved for situations where a legitimate legal right is at stake. 18.The Applicant has contended that it is the legally registered proprietor of the musical works in dispute. The Respondent, on the other hand, asserts that the artist holds exclusive copyrights over the musical works and had given his consent to the Respondents to distribute and monetise the musical works. 19.The Applicant has exhibited certificates of registration issued by the Kenya Copyright Board in respect of the musical works. These documents prima facie establish ownership and call for rebuttal. The Respondent has sought to counter this claim by relying on email correspondence from the artist alleging that the artist retains the relevant rights. At this interlocutory stage, it would be premature for the Court to make definitive findings on legal proprietorship. The Applicant further asserts that the Respondent has unlawfully continued to distribute and commercially exploit the works after the termination of the content licence agreement, and in disregard of a takedown notice. On the basis of the material presented, I am satisfied that the Applicant has established a prima facie case. 20.I now turn to the second principle, whether the Applicant has demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable harm, if the orders sought are not granted. Irreparable injury refers to harm that cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms. It is damage that is permanent, intangible, or incapable of precise quantification. However, where the injury can be quantified and remedied through damages, a court will normally not grant an injunction. In the Giella case, the Court of Appeal declined to grant an injunction on the basis that the Applicant’s loss was purely financial and could be adequately compensated by damages. 21.Similarly, in the circumstances of this case, any damages suffered would be tangible, quantifiable by way of accounts and can be adequately compensated in monetary terms. I therefore find that the Applicant has not demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive orders are not granted. Having so found, I shall not consider the third limb, as I am not in doubt and, in any event, it is dependent on the satisfaction of the first two. 22.The second issue for my consideration is whether the Applicant has met the criteria for granting the Anton Piller orders. Such orders are exceptional in nature and are ordinarily granted in the clearest of cases. The applicable test, set out in Anton Piller KG vs Manufacturing Process Ltd (1976) Ch. 55 and adopted in various decisions, including in John Boniface Maina vs Safaricom Limited [2013] KEHC 3663 (KLR), that:i.There is an extremely strong prima facie case against the Respondent,ii.The damage, potential or actual, must be very serious for the Applicant, andiii.There must be clear evidence that the Respondents have in their possession relevant documents or things and that there is a real possibility that they may destroy such material before an inter partes application can be made. 23.In Transcend Media Group Ltd vs Safaricom Ltd & 9 Others [2025] KEHC 64 (KLR), the High Court upheld an Anton Piller order to seize electronic evidence, highlighting the growing importance of such orders in the digital era. Conversely, in Netresource Ltd vs Ministry of Education [2023] KEHC 2425 (KLR), the court refused to grant the relief where the evidentiary threshold was not met, illustrating the need for strict compliance with the applicable principles. Thus, for this order to be available, the Applicant must show that without the order, it will suffer a greater injustice than that which, in the absence of the order, would be suffered by the Respondent. Therefore, due to their invasive nature and the potential for abuse, courts have consistently held that such orders must be granted in the clearest cases and subject to strict safeguards. The Court must thus, be satisfied that the injustice likely to be suffered by the Applicant in the absence of the order outweighs the potential prejudice to the Respondent. 24.In this case, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the documents or materials held by the Respondent are at risk of being damaged, altered, or concealment. The Applicant has also not provided strong proof that the Respondent is in possession of incriminating material, or that there exists a real and imminent danger that the Respondent might destroy the evidence before both parties can fully argue their case in court. The application for Anton Piller orders appears to be premised largely on apprehension rather than demonstrable risk. This falls short of the stringent threshold required. Moreover, the Respondent has expressed willingness to disclose the relevant materials through the ordinary process of discovery. In these circumstances, the invasive remedy sought is neither necessary nor justified. 25.In light of the foregoing, I find that the Applicant has failed to meet the threshold for grant of either injunctive relief under Giella vs Cassman Brown or Anton Piller orders settled in and Anton Piller KG vs Manufacturing Process Ltd Cases. 26.Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 9th October, 2025, is hereby dismissed. Costs shall be in the cause. 27.It is so ordered. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED VIRTUALLY THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026RHODA RUTTOJUDGEIn the presence of;Court Assistant: WabwireMs. Atieno for the Plaintiff/Applicant