The Kenya Copyright Board can suspend the operating licence of a collective management organisation, the Copyright Tribunal has ruled, rejecting a challenge by the Kenya Association of Music Producers.
The decision gives KECOBO a significant victory in its dispute with KAMP, which had argued that the regulator had gone beyond its legal powers.
KAMP’s licence was suspended for 90 days from July 1 after KECOBO raised concerns about the organisation’s governance, financial management and handling of royalty funds.
But the tribunal drew an important distinction. While it upheld KECOBO’s authority to intervene, it did not find KAMP responsible for the alleged breaches.
The dispute centres on Sh5.5 million that KECOBO says was meant for distribution to KAMP members but was instead spent on non-core activities.
The regulator also raised questions about KAMP’s compliance with a June 2025 consent agreement involving the Performing and Audio-Visual Rights Society of Kenya, or PAVRISK.
KAMP disputed the allegations. It said it had responded to the concerns raised by KECOBO and was prepared to provide further information and supporting documents.
In a letter dated July 10, KAMP said it remained open to what it described as “constructive engagement” with the regulator.
The organisation also challenged the legal basis of the suspension, arguing that KECOBO did not have the statutory power to take such action.
The tribunal, chaired by Elizabeth Lenjo, disagreed.
It found that KECOBO has a statutory mandate to supervise, inspect and regulate collective management organisations. The tribunal concluded that the regulator had not acted beyond the powers given to it by law.
“This Tribunal finds that the respondent (KECOBO) did not act ultra vires,” the tribunal said, adding that the supervision and investigation of the allegations against KAMP, which led to the suspension, fell within KECOBO’s mandate.
The ruling is significant because disputes over the regulation of Kenya’s collective management organisations have been before the Copyright Tribunal in recent years. In an earlier KAMP case, the tribunal ordered KECOBO to reconsider licensing applications in accordance with the Copyright Act and regulations.
Still, the latest decision does not settle the underlying allegations against KAMP.
The tribunal said it was not yet in a position to determine whether the organisation had actually committed the breaches cited by KECOBO. KAMP had submitted detailed responses disputing the regulator’s concerns, and the regulatory process was still under way.
The tribunal therefore directed KECOBO to complete that process within seven days of the determination.
The case leaves KAMP facing the regulator’s scrutiny while preserving its right to contest the substance of the allegations.
KECOBO has previously said its action was based on concerns about the management of royalty money, compliance with the 70:30 distribution requirement and other regulatory obligations. KAMP has rejected the allegations and maintained that it has engaged with the regulator over the issues.
For musicians, producers and other rights holders whose royalties pass through collective management organisations, the dispute is more than a fight between two institutions. It touches on how copyright revenue is collected, managed and ultimately paid to the people entitled to it.
About the Author
