Kenya High Court: Fathermoh Copyright Stay Vacated, Tribunal Cases Resume

• The Kenya High Court lifted a temporary stay on Copyright Tribunal proceedings involving musicians Fathermoh and Harry Craze against Black Market Records.
• Justice T. W. W. Ogwuya set aside previous orders and struck out Black Market Records' application, citing a failure of full disclosure.
• Black Market Records had not disclosed notices of appeal, the accurate sequence of related proceedings, or the status of earlier commercial cases.
• The court found that these material omissions meant the initial stay orders would not have been granted if all facts were known.
• The record label also failed to obtain an exemption under Section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act, which requires exhausting administrative remedies before approaching the High Court.

The court emphasized that these omissions were material, and had the information been properly disclosed, the initial orders would not have been granted.

The Kenya High Court has recently vacated orders that had temporarily halted proceedings at the Copyright Tribunal concerning a dispute between prominent musicians Moses Otieno Ojwang, known as Fathermoh, and Harry Otieno Adoyo, or Harry Craze, and their former label, Black Market Records. In a significant ruling delivered on November 9, 2026, Justice T. W. W. Ogwuya nullified the previous directives issued on September 29, which had effectively frozen two cases initiated by the artists before the Copyright Tribunal. This decision marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle.

Justice Ogwuya's ruling also saw the striking out of an application filed by Black Market Records LLC and its representative, Cedric Singleton. The record label had sought to transfer the tribunal proceedings to the High Court and to stop them entirely, asserting that the Copyright Tribunal lacked the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes. However, the court determined that Black Market Records had failed to provide essential information when it initially approached the High Court, including details about appeals related to the tribunal proceedings and the status of earlier commercial cases involving the same parties. This lack of transparency proved to be a critical factor in the court's decision.

The initial High Court intervention occurred on September 29, when Black Market Records successfully obtained leave to pursue judicial review. This permission notably included a provision that it would operate as a stay, thereby bringing the two Copyright Tribunal cases to a standstill. Fathermoh and Harry Craze subsequently challenged these orders, contending that Black Market Records had secured them without making a full and honest disclosure to the court.

Among the crucial omissions highlighted by the musicians were the existence of notices of appeal, which had been lodged on September 11 against decisions made in the Copyright Tribunal proceedings. Furthermore, they argued that the record label had neglected to inform the court about the status of related commercial cases, some of which had either been withdrawn or struck out. The artists also raised questions regarding Black Market Records LLC's legal standing, pointing to California corporate records indicating that an entity registered in 1999 had been suspended, and asserting that no valid transfer of the disputed contractual rights to another active entity had been demonstrated. Black Market Records, through an affidavit sworn by its manager, Kim Bush, disputed these claims, maintaining its operational status and good standing, and stating that its primary operations had relocated to Florida in 2015. The company also contended that the High Court had previously addressed the broader copyright dispute, making it the appropriate forum for the matter.

Justice Ogwuya ultimately found that Black Market Records had indeed failed to uphold the fundamental obligation of full and honest disclosure, a requirement paramount when seeking orders without the opposing parties having been heard. The judge specifically noted that the September 29 orders had been obtained without revealing the notices of appeal, providing an accurate chronological account of the proceedings before both the High Court and the tribunal, or clarifying the status of the earlier commercial suits. The court emphasized that these omissions were material, and had the information been properly disclosed, the initial orders would not have been granted.

This ruling underscores the critical importance of the judicial review full disclosure requirement. Moreover, Justice Ogwuya determined that Black Market Records had not secured an exemption under Section 9(4) of the Fair Administrative Action Act. This specific legal provision permits the High Court to exempt a party from the general principle of first exhausting available administrative or tribunal remedies. The legal framework in Kenya generally mandates that parties utilize established dispute-resolution mechanisms, such as the Copyright Tribunal Kenya jurisdiction, before escalating matters to the High Court. The absence of such an exemption further solidified the court's decision to set aside the stay.

The underlying disagreement between the musicians and Black Market Records originates from disputes over various musical works and a contractual agreement dated November 9, 2019. Fathermoh and Harry Craze had independently initiated claims against Black Market Records LLC and two other entities before the Copyright Tribunal in 2026. Harry Craze's specific claim, filed on May 11, 2026, pertained to the aforementioned agreement and included several musical compositions such as "Matopare," "Luku Ni Pyam," and "Diglo." These actions at the tribunal prompted Black Market Records to seek intervention from the High Court, leading to the judicial review application that has now been dismissed. The Kenya High Court Fathermoh copyright stay decision reinforces the procedural integrity required in such legal challenges.

Lawyers and compliance officers must ensure full and honest disclosure of all material facts, including related proceedings and appeals, when seeking ex parte orders or judicial review, as failure to do so can lead to the setting aside of orders. This ruling also reinforces the principle of exhausting administrative remedies before approaching the High Court, unless an explicit exemption is obtained under the Fair Administrative Action Act.

Source: Based on recent legal reporting.