JB Maina hits Samidoh, Waithaka Wa Jane with Sh23.4m copyright suit
Maina has accused Samuel Muchoki Ndirangu, alias Samidoh, and John Waithaka Mwangi, popularly known as Waithaka Wa Jane, of commercially performing his compositions without his permission or payment of royalties.
Kenya’s lucrative Mugithi music business has been thrust into a copyright storm after veteran musician John Boniface Maina, popularly known as JB Maina, sued two of the genre’s biggest names, Samuel Muchoki Ndirangu, alias Samidoh and Waithaka Wa Jane, demanding about Sh23.4million over alleged unauthorised exploitation of his music.
Maina has accused Samuel Muchoki Ndirangu, alias Samidoh, and John Waithaka Mwangi, popularly known as Waithaka Wa Jane, of commercially performing his compositions without his permission or payment of royalties.
The veteran artiste claims the alleged use of his works has cost him millions in lost income, with Waithaka Wa Jane alone being blamed for an estimated Sh9.4million in losses.
The suit places the commercial value of Mugithi compositions and artists’ rights at the centre of a potentially significant legal battle, as musicians increasingly depend on live performances, digital platforms and commercial exploitation of their catalogues for income.
Maina maintained that he is the rightful copyright owner of the disputed compositions and argues that any commercial performance or exploitation required his prior authorisation.
In court documents, Maina presented himself as an established recording and performing artiste with a long career in Kenya’s entertainment industry.
“I am a professional recording and performing artist widely known within the entertainment industry by my stage name JB Maina over the years,” he states.
The case could have wider implications for Kenya’s Mugithi industry, particularly over who controls popular compositions, how musicians secure permission to perform established works and whether artistes are adequately compensated when their music generates commercial revenue.
Maina is seeking compensation for the alleged financial losses, with the court now set to determine the competing claims over ownership, authorisation and royalties.
The case is ongoing.
