The Copyright Tribunal in Nairobi has upheld the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO)’s authority to suspend the operating licence of the Kenya Association of Music Producers (KAMP), rejecting KAMP’s challenge to the regulator’s decision.
KAMP had moved to the tribunal seeking to overturn KECOBO’s decision to suspend its licence for 90 days, effective July 1, 2026, amid the board’s concerns over its governance, compliance and management of royalty funds.
KECOBO had alleged that Sh5,514,559.16 meant for distribution to KAMP members had been spent on non-core activities, contrary to the obligations imposed on licensed collective management organisations (CMOs).
The regulator also raised concerns over KAMP’s compliance with obligations arising from a consent agreement reached in June 2025 between KAMP and the Performing and Audio-Visual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK), which was intended to harmonise licensing operations.
In a suspension notice signed by KECOBO Board chairman Joshua Kutuny, the regulator cited various concerns that it said warranted regulatory intervention.
KAMP, however, disputed the regulator’s action and challenged the legality of the suspension before the Copyright Tribunal.
At the heart of the appeal was whether KECOBO had the legal power to suspend a CMO’s licence or whether it had acted beyond its statutory mandate.
KAMP argued that KECOBO lacked the statutory authority to suspend its licence and had therefore acted beyond its powers.
The music producers’ body also disputed the allegations raised by the regulator, saying it had provided detailed responses to the concerns cited in the suspension notice.
In a July 10, 2026 letter, KAMP said it had submitted preliminary and substantive responses and would provide further details and supporting documents.
It also expressed willingness to engage with KECOBO, saying it remained committed to “constructive engagement” and addressing the matters raised “transparently and comprehensively.”
In its findings, the tribunal, chaired by Elizabeth Lenjo, found that KECOBO had the requisite statutory authority to supervise, inspect and regulate CMOs.
The court also concluded that KECOBO had not acted ultra vires, meaning that the body had not acted beyond the powers granted to it by law.
“This Tribunal finds that the respondent (KECOBO) did not act ultra-vires. The supervision, inspection and or enquiry over the allegations against the appellant (KAMP), culminating in the suspension, is within the respondent’s statutory mandate and therefore upheld”, the Tribunal ruled.
It further relied on provisions of the Act and the Copyright (Collective Management) Regulations governing the inspection and control of CMOs.
However, the tribunal did not make a finding that KAMP was culpable of the allegations raised by KECOBO.
It noted that KAMP had provided detailed responses disputing the concerns raised by the regulator.
The tribunal said it was not at that stage properly placed to determine whether KAMP had committed the alleged breaches because the regulatory process was still ongoing.
Consequently, KECOBO was directed to conclude its regulatory process within seven days from the date of the determination.
