REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT LODWAR
COMMERCIAL PETITION NO. E006 OF 2025
IBRAHIM YUSUF………………………………………………………..… …….1 ST PETITIONER
JALINGA EKAI ALFRED…………………………….…………..……………..2 ND PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE KENYA COPYRIGHT BOARD (KECOBO)………………………….…..1 ST RESPONDENT
THE BOARD CHAIRMAN, KECOBO………………………………...………2 ND RESPONDENT
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KECOBO………………………………………3 RD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. While the petition, an application for conservatory orders and another for setting aside the interim conservatory orders were all pending, two parties; Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) and Performing and Audio- Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK) filed two separate applications seeking to be made parties to the petition.
2. To the applications, only that by Performing and Audio- Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PARISK) was opposed by the petitioners by the Replying Affidavit Sworn by Ibrahim Yusuf on the 4 th December 2025. The application by Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) attracted no Replying Affidavit nor grounds of opposition and would under the provisions of Order 51 Rule 14 (4) be deemed unopposed to be heard exparte.
3. However, when the parties attended court this afternoon, Mr. Orina, counsel for the Respondents told the court that he wished to concede to the application by Performing and Audio- Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK) but would orally oppose the application by Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK). The court conceded to that request for purposes of fast tracking the matter.
4. On his part Mr. Maina Mburu also sided with the Respondent in conceded to joinder of Performing and Audio- Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK) but told the court not to join Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) on the basis that their participation will offer no benefit towards the just determination but rather muddle the matters.
5. On its part the Petitioner’s Counsel Mr. Ogora conceded to the application by Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) but opposed that by Performing and Audio- Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK) on the basis of the Replying Affidavit filed. His opposition to the application was that Performing and Audio- Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK) have demonstrated nothing but a commercial interest in the matter and will therefore not be bringing any benefit to the fair determination of the Petition if joined.
6. The court views the petition to be fairly straight forward, whether or not in the petitioner’s rights in the intellectual property have been violated or not.
7. That question is one that ought to be restricted for resolution between the petitioners and the respondents only.
8. I see no interest the two applicants may possibly have in the dispute at the end of the matter. I equally see no prejudice either will suffer whichever way the petition ends
9. Further I see the two applications to portend infiltrating the petition with their rivalry over the license as copyright royalty collectors.
10. That will not only be detractive but equally cloud the environment and compromise speedy and easy conclusion of the petition.
11. The court finds the two not to have demonstrated a stake in the dispute which will be affected by the ultimate decision by the court.
12. For failure to establish a stake in the dispute pleaded by the petitioners and contested by the respondent, the court finds no merit in the two applications and dismisses the same.
13. The court makes no orders as to costs.
Dated, delivered and signed on 5 th day of December 2025 .
P. J. O. OTIENO
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Mr. Orina for the Respondents.
Mr. Musyoka for the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK)
Mr. Mburu for Performing and Audio- Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK)
Mr. Ogora for Petitioner.
Mr. Musyoka:
I seek leave to appeal against the ruling. I also pray for a copy of the same.
Mr. Mburu:
I also seek a copy of the decision and leave to appeal.
Mr. Orina:
No objection to the leave being granted.
Mr. Ogora:
No objection to leave.
Court:
Leave is granted to both Mr. Musyoka and Mr. Mburu to Appeal against the ruling.
The ruling will be posted in Case Tracking System (CTS) for parties to access.
P. J. O. OTIENO
JUDGE
Lodwar HCCOMMPET. No. E006 of 2025 Ruling Page 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT LODWAR
COMMERCIAL PETITION NO. E006 OF 2025
IBRAHIM YUSUF………………………………………………………..… …….1 ST PETITIONER
JALINGA EKAI ALFRED…………………………….…………..……………..2 ND PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE KENYA COPYRIGHT BOARD (KECOBO)………………………….…..1 ST RESPONDENT
THE BOARD CHAIRMAN, KECOBO………………………………...………2 ND RESPONDENT
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KECOBO………………………………………3 RD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. While the petition, an application for conservatory orders and another for setting aside the interim conservatory orders were all pending, two parties; Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) and Performing and Audio- Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK) filed two separate applications seeking to be made parties to the petition.
2. To the applications, only that by Performing and Audio- Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PARISK) was opposed by the petitioners by the Replying Affidavit Sworn by Ibrahim Yusuf on the 4 th December 2025. The application by Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) attracted no Replying Affidavit nor grounds of opposition and would under the provisions of Order 51 Rule 14 (4) be deemed unopposed to be heard exparte.
3. However, when the parties attended court this afternoon, Mr. Orina, counsel for the Respondents told the court that he wished to concede to the application by Performing and Audio- Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK) but would orally oppose the application by Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK). The court conceded to that request for purposes of fast tracking the matter.
4. On his part Mr. Maina Mburu also sided with the Respondent in conceded to joinder of Performing and Audio- Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK) but told the court not to join Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) on the basis that their participation will offer no benefit towards the just determination but rather muddle the matters.
5. On its part the Petitioner’s Counsel Mr. Ogora conceded to the application by Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) but opposed that by Performing and Audio- Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK) on the basis of the Replying Affidavit filed. His opposition to the application was that Performing and Audio- Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK) have demonstrated nothing but a commercial interest in the matter and will therefore not be bringing any benefit to the fair determination of the Petition if joined.
6. The court views the petition to be fairly straight forward, whether or not in the petitioner’s rights in the intellectual property have been violated or not.
7. That question is one that ought to be restricted for resolution between the petitioners and the respondents only.
8. I see no interest the two applicants may possibly have in the dispute at the end of the matter. I equally see no prejudice either will suffer whichever way the petition ends
9. Further I see the two applications to portend infiltrating the petition with their rivalry over the license as copyright royalty collectors.
10. That will not only be detractive but equally cloud the environment and compromise speedy and easy conclusion of the petition.
11. The court finds the two not to have demonstrated a stake in the dispute which will be affected by the ultimate decision by the court.
12. For failure to establish a stake in the dispute pleaded by the petitioners and contested by the respondent, the court finds no merit in the two applications and dismisses the same.
13. The court makes no orders as to costs.
Dated, delivered and signed on 5 th day of December 2025 .
P. J. O. OTIENO
JUDGE
In the presence of;
Mr. Orina for the Respondents.
Mr. Musyoka for the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK)
Mr. Mburu for Performing and Audio- Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK)
Mr. Ogora for Petitioner.
Mr. Musyoka:
I seek leave to appeal against the ruling. I also pray for a copy of the same.
Mr. Mburu:
I also seek a copy of the decision and leave to appeal.
Mr. Orina:
No objection to the leave being granted.
Mr. Ogora:
No objection to leave.
Court:
Leave is granted to both Mr. Musyoka and Mr. Mburu to Appeal against the ruling.
The ruling will be posted in Case Tracking System (CTS) for parties to access.
P. J. O. OTIENO
JUDGE
Lodwar HCCOMMPET. No. E006 of 2025 Ruling Page 1