Kenya's High Court has barred MCSK from collecting royalties. Who pays musicians now?

Kenya's High Court has barred the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) from collecting royalties while it appeals the regulator's refusal to license it. The Star reported the ruling on 21 August. MCSK says it represents more than 15,000 authors, composers, publishers and copyright owners. Until the appeal is decided, it may not present itself as a licensed collective management organisation (CMO), and it may not collect, demand, invoice, receive or levy royalties or licence fees where Section 46 of the Copyright Act requires a licence.

It is the latest step in a fight that has run for almost a year. It comes weeks after the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) suspended the licence of a second society, the Kenya Association of Music Producers (KAMP).

How did MCSK end up here?

KECOBO turned down MCSK's licence application in October 2025, for the licensing period that started on 5 November 2025. According to Citizen Digital, the regulator issued one-year licences to two societies on 14 October, PAVRISK (the Performing and Audio Visual Rights Society of Kenya) and KAMP. MCSK and at least two other applicants missed out. The grounds MCSK disputes are a failure to file certified annual returns and audited accounts for the previous five years.

MCSK appealed to the Copyright Tribunal. The Tribunal first removed an earlier order that had let MCSK keep collecting, then dismissed the appeal. MCSK went to the High Court and asked for interim orders so it could keep operating. KECOBO asked for the opposite: an order stopping it.

Justice Linus Kassan found MCSK's appeal arguable. It raises questions about how Section 46 should be read, whether KECOBO's decision was lawful and fair, and constitutional rights. But he held that an arguable case was not enough, and said a court should be "slow to issue an interlocutory order" that in effect grants a statutory licence where none exists. He stressed that the ruling does not decide the appeal itself.

The society is also split internally. Citizen Digital reported in December that two rival factions each claimed to lead MCSK.

What happened to KAMP?

KECOBO suspended KAMP's operating licence for 90 days from 1 July 2026. The Standard listed the regulator's reasons. KECOBO says Sh5.51 million meant for rights holders went on non-core activities, and that KAMP did not follow the 70:30 rule on how much of what it collects must go to rights holders. It also accuses KAMP of licensing below the gazetted tariffs, spending royalty money on litigation, and keeping directors past their term limits.

KAMP denies any wrongdoing. It says it first learned of the embezzlement allegation from KECOBO's public notice and was suspended without a fair hearing. KAMP took the suspension to the Copyright Tribunal, which upheld KECOBO's decision in a judgment on 18 August. That ruling was about the suspension; the Sh5.51 million remains an allegation, and we know of no court finding on it.

During the suspension, KECOBO told PAVRISK to collect royalties in KAMP's sectors. That money goes into a separate trust account and cannot be distributed or used until KECOBO says so.

The regulator then went further. At a special board meeting on 24 August, The Standard reported on 27 August, KECOBO dissolved KAMP's board, told its directors to vacate office with elections for a new board within 30 days, and directed that chief executive Maurice Okoth and other officers involved in matters under investigation be suspended. It has also referred the Sh5.5 million matter to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. KAMP said it would pursue all available legal remedies.

So who collects for Kenyan musicians now?

According to The Star, PAVRISK is now the licensed CMO authorised to collect and distribute. Music In Africa describes PAVRISK as a multi-right society for authors, composers, arrangers, performers and audiovisual rights holders. It paid about $186,000 to 5,887 members in its first distribution and pays out twice a year, in April and October. Those 5,887 were members whose details had been verified and approved. More than 5,000 newer registrations were still waiting to be vetted.

Tariffs are a further complication. Before the Tribunal in October 2025, KECOBO pointed to a High Court ruling in July 2024 (Petition E076 of 2024) that nullified the music tariffs gazetted in 2023 for lack of adequate public participation, and said that "effectively, there are no tariffs" on which even licensed societies could collect, Citizen Digital reported. KECOBO said it had since sent revised tariffs to the ministry for publication. In April 2026 HapaKenya reported that KECOBO had implemented consolidated music and audiovisual tariffs for 2026–2028, which put the rights of authors, producers, performers and actors under a single licence fee.

What would the new copyright bill change?

KECOBO's draft Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 2026 would replace the 2001 Copyright Act. Its explanatory memorandum says two decades of experience have shown "systemic deficiencies" in how CMOs are regulated. Public comments closed on 31 March 2026. We couldn't find a public record of a revised draft or of the bill going to Parliament.

Four clauses in Part XII bear directly on the situation above:

• Interim administrator. Under section 93(6), if a CMO's licence is suspended or revoked, the regulator "shall appoint an interim administrator to ensure continued collection and remittance of royalties". The key word is remittance, meaning the money is paid on, not just collected.
• Longer licences. Under section 93(3), licences would last three years instead of being renewed every year.
• Payment deadline. Under section 94(4), royalties would have to be distributed within six months of collection, unless the regulator decides otherwise.
• One society per sector. Under section 92(4), if a licensed CMO in a sector is operating effectively, the regulator "shall not" license another one in that sector.

What we think

KECOBO's complaints are about the right things. Missing audited accounts, money diverted from members, and royalties kept rather than paid out are exactly what a regulator should act on, though both societies dispute the allegations against them. Our problem is with the remedy. Each round of enforcement since late 2025 has left money stuck in the system: a society that can't invoice, and a suspended society whose sector collections sit in a trust account. Behind both are tariffs that a court cancelled and that took until 2026 to replace. The songwriters and producers these rules are meant to protect are the ones still waiting to be paid.

The draft bill's interim-administrator clause is the most useful idea in it for working musicians, because it treats continued payment as a duty rather than a favour granted at the regulator's discretion. Three-year licences would also mean fewer annual deadlines over which the whole system can fall.

The one-society-per-sector clause cuts both ways. Users would get a single place to buy a licence, and duplicate billing would end. But members would lose the ability to leave a society that serves them badly for a rival. If the people writing the rules keep finding failing societies, a law that makes the survivor harder to challenge needs strong transparency duties to go with it. The bill's quarterly reports and published annual statements are a start. Whether anyone enforces them is the real test.

If you write or produce music in Kenya, don't wait for the appeal to end. Find out which licensed society holds a mandate for your works and recordings, check that your membership details are verified (PAVRISK paid only verified members), and keep your own record of your registrations. The same lesson comes up wherever collection is being restructured, from Kenya to Indonesia: if you can't see the data, you can't claim the money.