When Crystal Asige joined Sol Generation Records in 2019, she believed it was the start of a dream. The Kenyan singer, now a nominated senator, had moved from Mombasa to Nairobi, lured by the promise of mentorship from one of Africa’s biggest music groups—Sauti Sol.
Six years later, that partnership has ended in court.
Asige accuses Sauti Sol and their label, Sol Generation Records, of discrimination, exploitation, and violating her intellectual property rights. The case, now before Lady Justice Margaret Mwangi at the High Court, has drawn wide attention for its potential impact on how artists are treated in Kenya’s creative industry.
In her testimony, Asige said she joined the label on trust, with no written contract but a clear promise of collaboration. “I worked on songs, attended studio sessions, and wrote lyrics that went on to become hits,” she told the court. “But I was never paid, nor was there a formal agreement.”
Among the tracks she contributed to were Extravaganza, Ukiwa Mbali, and 1919 to Forever—songs that helped shape the label’s early success. Asige claims her growing fame was used to polish the group’s public image as supporters of young and diverse talent.
“They used my disability as a selling point for their PR campaigns,” she said. “It was portrayed as if the label was championing me as an artist with a disability.”
However, things reportedly changed when she began asking questions about pay and contractual fairness. According to Asige, her messages went unanswered, she was left out of meetings, and her name disappeared from key projects.
She alleges that her lyrics were later used without proper credit on Sauti Sol’s 2020 album Midnight Train, specifically in the track Intro. “I was listed as a co-writer instead of the sole author,” she said.
Sauti Sol and Sol Generation have strongly denied the claims. In a written response to the court, the group said Asige was “treated with care and respect,” noting that the team even supported her through medical procedures. They maintain that her involvement in projects was collaborative and properly acknowledged.
The case has become one of the most closely watched in Kenya’s entertainment scene, touching on sensitive issues of inclusivity, fairness, and ownership in a rapidly growing creative economy.
For many industry observers, the outcome could redefine how record labels engage artists, especially those living with disabilities. It could also set new standards for intellectual property protection in Kenya’s music business.
The proceedings continue at the High Court, with both sides standing firm in their accounts of what began as a promising collaboration—and ended in a high-stakes legal showdown.
About the Author
