Content creator and brand influencer Brian Mutinda can now breathe a sigh of relief after a Nairobi court set aside a Sh1 million damages claim against him and Syinix Electronics Ltd.
The claim was for using the disputed ‘wee kamu’ slogan in an online advertisement. And without the permission of rapper Hubert Nakitare, known as Nonini.
Initially, Mr. Mutinda and Syinix Electronics Ltd were found liable for copyright infringement on March 23. This was after failing to appear in court to defend themselves.
The Court Rules
However, Mr. Mutinda successfully argued that he had not been given the chance to present his case, leading the court to set aside the judgment.
Milimani Chief Magistrate Hosea Ng’ang’a directed the parties to appear before him on June 11 for the highlighting of submissions and setting a judgment date.
Mr. Mutinda contended that he should not be penalized for the negligence of his former lawyer, who failed to file a defense.
He only learned of the judgment through a tweet by Nonini on X (formerly Twitter), which tagged him and demanded payment.
“I became aware of the judgment on March 23, 2023. [Nonini] through his official Twitter handle tagged me in a tweet demanding the payment,” Mr. Mutinda stated in an affidavit filed in court.
He then consulted his former lawyers, who informed him that the decision had been made by default.
“I humbly seek a stay of the court’s judgment and all related proceedings, and request that this application be heard urgently.” he submitted.
If the ex-parte judgment is not set aside and the plaintiff/respondent proceeds with execution, I will suffer irreparable loss and damages,”
Brian Mutinda Blames Syinix Electronics Ltd
Brian Mutinda denied any wrongdoing in the creation of the advertisement and blamed Syinix Electronics Ltd, the company that contracted him.
“If such a video exists and was posted by the 2nd defendant (Syinix) as alleged, it was done in their capacity. The 1st defendant cannot be held liable for the actions of the 2nd defendant,” he stated in court documents.
He further argued that Syinix benefited from the content, and thus, liability should not fall on him.
“The content in the said video was for the benefit of the 2nd defendant, and the 1st defendant had no legal obligation to obtain a license for the said video.”
The case comes up for mentioning in June.
Source: Sinda Matiko for the Business Daily.
By Vivian K.