MCSK and KECOBO in new court battle over licence renewal

In the appeal, MCSK is seeking orders declaring KECOBO’s decision dated October 14, 2025, null and void, and wants the Tribunal to direct the board to issue it a valid operating license. 

The organization is also asking to be allowed to continue collecting and distributing royalties to its members in the interim.

According to documents filed before the Tribunal, KECOBO had, on September 4, 2025, issued a public notice inviting applications from entities seeking to be licensed as CMOs for one year, effective November 5, 2025. MCSK says it subsequently applied through the eCitizen platform on September 18.

However, on October 14, MCSK says it learned through a public statement that KECOBO had only approved licenses for the Kenya Association of Music Producers (KAMP Copyright and Related Rights Limited) and the Performing and Audiovisual Rights Society of Kenya (PAVRISK).

In a letter dated the same day, KECOBO informed MCSK that its application had been rejected for failing to submit certified copies of annual returns and audited accounts for the last five years, as well as missing documentation on members’ identification details.

The board cited breaches of the Copyright (Collective Management) Regulations, 2020, including failure to prove that MCSK’s accounts were regularly audited by an independent auditor, and whether its administrative costs exceeded the 30 per cent threshold of royalties collected.

MCSK, however, insists that it met all the legal requirements and accuses KECOBO of acting in defiance of previous court and tribunal orders.

The society cites a 2024 judgment by the Copyright Tribunal in case number COPTA/E002/2024, which directed KECOBO to issue provisional licenses to three CMOs — including MCSK. 

It also references a January 31, 2025, ruling by High Court Judge Joe M. Omido in Civil Appeal No. E1035 of 2024, which dismissed KECOBO’s application to stay execution of that judgment.

Despite those rulings, MCSK claims KECOBO has been “slow, inefficient, and procedurally unfair” in exercising its regulatory authority and has refused to issue the provisional renewal license.

MCSK argues that the continued refusal has crippled its operations and infringed on the rights of its over 15,000 members, including composers, authors, and publishers, who rely on the society for royalty collection and distribution.

“The Respondent’s decision is arbitrary, irrational, and in bad faith, disregarding the economic well-being of over 15,500 authors, composers, arrangers, and publishers,” the appeal states.

The society is urging the Tribunal to hear the matter urgently, arguing that the decision has caused grave prejudice and violated its members’ constitutional rights under Article 40 of the Constitution, which protects intellectual property.