Mugithi stars Samidoh, Wa Jane face legal battle over JB Maina hits

JB Maina sues Samidoh and Waithaka wa Jane over alleged unauthorised use of his songs. [File, Standard]

Whenever music lovers meet, they savour a sweet mix of songs played by musicians, kindling their hearts on fire for songs in local languages.

However, this may end, especially for Gikuyu musicians, after Mugithi artiste John Boniface Maina, who is known by the stage name JB Maina, decided to sue Samuel Muchoki, popularly known as Samidoh, and Waithaka wa Jane for entertaining Kikuyu song lovers with what he claims are his compositions.

Maina, in his case filed before the Commercial Court, accuses the two big wigs of violating his copyright and earning more than Sh23 million in profits.

He alleged that he is the producer and composer of famous songs such as Muiritu wa Kabete, Tiga Kumute, Njeri, Ndwara Cece, Arata, Tuhuwa twa Rose, Uninyi Wakwa, Kirindi, Mundiatwa and Tumura Kanua.

“I am a professional recording and performing artist widely known within the entertainment industry by my stage name JB Maina over the years," he claims.

"1 have devoted my professional career to the composition, recording, production and performance of original musical works that have earned widespread recognition and commercial success both within the Republic of Kenya and internationally. My musical repertoire constitutes the product of considerable creativity, artistic skill, financial investment and professional experience accumulated over many years of dedicated work.”

He argues that Samido and Waithaka Wa Jane have been using his songs without his consent for commercial purposes.

He claims that for Samido, he had earned at least Sh14 million in different renditions of his songs played in Kenya, abroad and online.

JB further breaks down the loss at Sh10 million after Samido played his composition in the US between February 2023 and December 2024. Further, he makes a conservative Sh4.4 million loss during performances in Kenya between 2024 and 2026.

“The plaintiff enjoys the exclusive statutory rights to authorise or prohibit the reproduction, adaptation, public performance, communication to the public, distribution, broadcasting and commercial exploitation of his copyrighted musical works. The Defendant's conduct has occasioned me substantial financial loss and continuing commercial prejudice. Beyond the immediate loss of license fees and royalties, the persistent unauthorised use of my repertoire has diluted the commercial value of my intellectual property, undermined my exclusive statutory rights and weakened my ability to commercially negotiate licenses with other performers and promoters,” Maina’s case against the former police officer reads in part.

He maintains that there was no deal between Samido and himself on the use of his composition.

In his case against Waithaka wa Jane, the musician claims that he lost around Sh9.4 million. Maina targets his colleague for also performing the songs he claims ownership of in the US and Kenya between 2023 and this year.

He urges the court to block the two from using his compositions during their performances. At the same time, he sought general and special damages against the two musicians.

“The plaintiff states that the defendant has been unjustly enriched by commercially exploiting intellectual property belonging exclusively to him while avoiding payment of the requisite license fees and royalties. No written license, assignment, authorisation or other lawful permission had been granted by him authorising such exploitation,” argues Maina.

He maintains that Samido and Waithaka had allegedly used his songs owing to their acceptability by the audiences.

However, he said, their sin was not to seek his permission as the content was copyrighted.

“The inclusion of my repertoire significantly enhanced the entertainment value of their performances, increased audience engagement and enabled the Defendant to derive substantial commercial benefit from musical works in which they possessed no proprietary interest whatsoever. I believe that the Defendant either knew or reasonably ought to have known that the use of another artist's copyrighted repertoire without authorisation was unlawful, yet they nonetheless continued to exploit my works for their own commercial advantage,” he claims.