The High Court has declined to temporarily grant the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) a stay on a decision by the Copyright Tribunal that bars it from collecting and distributing royalties, one of its key functions.
In its ruling on December 11, 2025, Justice Linus Kassan directed that the matter be heard inter partes in mid-2026.
“Upon perusal of the motion dated the 10th day of December 2025, I direct that the matter be heard inter-partes on the 21st day of July 2026,” he ruled.
MCSK, through lawyer Duncan Okubasu, had filed an appeal under a certificate of urgency on December 10, 2025, seeking to stay the Tribunal’s decision that barred it from operating due to a lack of a valid license, court documents indicate.
The society also sought to stay the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) decision of October 14, 2025, which declined to issue MCSK with an operating license for the 2025–2026 period.
Additionally, the appeal sought an injunction restraining KECOBO and the Performing and Audio-Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK), including their agents, from interfering with MCSK’s operations in royalty collection and distribution.
"The Tribunal erred in law by misinterpreting and misapplying the Copyright Act (Collection Management Regulations, 2020 by imposing a rigid threshold of compliance and failing to properly assess whether the alluded deficiencies amounted to sufficient grounds to deny MCSK registration," reads the motion in part.
The Tribunal’s ruling of November 25, 2025, discharged interim orders that had temporarily allowed MCSK to collect royalties.
The Tribunal noted that, without a valid license, MCSK lacks authority to collect royalties or issue unified licences to users of music and audio-visual works.
The case arises from an appeal filed on October 16, 2025, challenging KECOBO’s decision not to renew MCSK’s Collection Management Organisation (CMO) license for 2025–2026.
The Tribunal cited recent High Court rulings by Justice Chacha Mwita and Justice John Chigiti, which addressed similar issues on collective management and tariff regulations.
Responding to the appeal through Nairobi-based lawyer Alex Nyabwengi, KECOBO argued that the collection and distribution of royalties can only be undertaken by a duly licensed Collective Management Organisation (CMO), as provided under Section 2 of the Copyright Act, Cap 130, and subject to board approval.
KECOBO further contends that only a duly licensed CMO may collect and distribute royalties, and the board had issued operating licenses to PAVRISK and KAMP Copyright and Related Rights for the period starting November 5, 2025.
The board noted the ongoing legal challenges on tariffs in the sector, citing that Justice Mwita nullified tariffs published under Legal Notice No. 84 of 2023 due to insufficient public participation, which means there were effectively no valid tariffs for royalty collection.
On its part, court documents indicate that MCSK, through Okubasu and Munene Advocates, argued that KECOBO erred in law by declining its application for a renewable licence for the 2025–2026 period.
The rejection, MCSK said, was based on allegations that it failed to submit a certified copy of its annual returns showing the corporate structure for the year ending December 31 preceding the application, as required under Regulation 3(i)(c) of the Copyright Regulations, 2020.
"KECOBO also erred in law in finding that the appellant failed to provide audited accounts of the CMO for the 5 years preceding the date of the application," Okubasu added.
The High Court is now set to hear the matter on July 21, 2026.
