Case Analysis: Wanjiku v Christ is the Answer Ministries (CITAM) & another [2025] KEHC 8774 (KLR)
Musicians, churches, schools and content creators often assume that using someone else's work is safe as long as they change a few details, don't make money from it, or are using it for a good cause. This High Court decision shows why that assumption can be costly.
The Case in Brief
In Rebecca Wanjiku v Christ is the Answer Ministries (CITAM) & Another (Nairobi High Court, Civil Suit No. 066 of 2020, decided 20 June 2025), the plaintiff claimed copyright in a song called "Rungu Rwa Ihiga," which she had registered in 2011. She sued CITAM and a second defendant over a song titled "Athuri Mwihithe," arguing that a section of it copied her lyrics and tune.
The defendants denied wrongdoing. They argued that the plaintiff's song wasn't original, that the phrase in question was a common Christian expression, that their song was independently written, that the material came from the Bible, that any overlap was incidental, and that their performance was for ministry purposes rather than profit.
The Court ruled for the plaintiff. Below are the key principles that came out of the decision.
1. A Registration Certificate Carries Real Weight
The plaintiff produced her copyright registration certificate, which the Court treated as prima facie proof of authorship and ownership. Once she produced it — and the defendants admitted they weren't claiming authorship themselves — the burden shifted to the defendants to show either that they had created their song independently or that a legal exception applied.
Takeaway: Registering your work isn't a formality. It becomes powerful evidence if a dispute ever arises.
2. Copyright Protects the Expression, Not the Idea
The defendants argued their lyrics were drawn from Exodus 33:21–23, which mentions a rock. The Court disagreed that this excused the copying — the Bible passage didn't contain the specific lyrical structure both songs shared.
This reflects a foundational copyright principle: the law protects how an idea is expressed — the specific words, melody, and arrangement — not the underlying theme or story. Two people can write songs about the same Bible passage without infringing on each other, but one cannot lift the other's specific expression of it.
3. "How Much Was Copied" Isn't Just About Minutes
The defendants pointed out that the disputed section was only part of their six-minute song. The Court rejected this defence. What matters is not just quantity, but quality — whether what was taken represents an essential or central part of the original work.
Here, the copied section ran over three minutes, carried identical lyrics, a similar tune, and conveyed the song's central message. That was enough to be substantial, even though it wasn't the whole song.
4. "Incidental Use" Has a High Bar
Kenyan copyright law excuses material that appears only incidentally as background, casual or inessential content in another work. The defendants tried to rely on this exception, but the Court found their use of the plaintiff's material was prominent, repeated, and central to their song, not incidental at all.
Takeaway: You can't invoke the incidental-use exception simply because the borrowed material is a portion of a longer work. What matters is the role that material plays within the new work.
5. "Everyone Sings It" Is Not Proof of Public Domain
The defendants claimed the song was Kikuyu folklore, commonly performed at various functions. The Court rejected this, noting that popularity or frequent performance doesn't strip a work of copyright protection. Without evidence that the song predated the plaintiff's authorship or was genuinely traditional, the claim failed.
6. Non-Commercial Use Is Not a Free Pass
Perhaps the most important lesson for churches, schools and NGOs: the Court held that lack of profit motive does not eliminate liability for infringement. What matters is whether the copyright owner's exclusive rights were used without permission. Non-commercial purpose may reduce the damages awarded, but it does not excuse the infringement itself.
7. Publishing Online Can Increase Exposure
The defendants had uploaded their performance to YouTube in 2015. The Court noted that once material is online, its reach can keep growing, and when the defendants failed to produce the video despite a formal request, the Court drew an adverse inference against them. Upload dates, view counts and platform records can all become important evidence in a dispute.
8. Damages Are Not a Fixed Formula
The Court awarded the plaintiff KShs. 1,500,000 in general damages, together with interest and costs. It considered factors such as the extent of the infringement, whether the use was commercial, and the harm caused rather than applying a rigid mathematical formula. Kenyan courts assess each case on its own facts.
The Bottom Line
Wanjiku v CITAM is a useful reminder for musicians, churches, schools, and anyone publishing content online that good intentions and the absence of profit do not protect against a copyright claim. Understanding what is actually protected, and securing proper permission before reproducing someone else's work, remains the safest course.
How We Can Help
Whether you're a musician, songwriter, church, school, or content creator, protecting your creative work or defending against a copyright claim requires careful legal guidance from the outset. Our firm assists clients with copyright registration, drafting licensing and permission agreements, reviewing content before publication to flag infringement risk, and representing clients in copyright disputes through negotiation, alternative dispute resolution, or litigation.
If you believe your work has been copied, or you've been accused of infringing someone else's, we can help you assess your position and chart the right course of action.
