ARYEH MOVEMENT LIMITED v CYNTHIA BELDINA AKOTH

1. CASE TITLE

ARYEH MOVEMENT LIMITED v CYNTHIA BELDINA AKOTH  

Copyright Tribunal Case No. COPTA/E001/2025 (2025) 

2. COURT NAME AND BENCH 

Court: Copyright Tribunal of Kenya (Nairobi County) Bench: 

• Hon. Elizabeth Lenjo (Chairperson) 
• Hon. Joseph Kihanya (Member) 
• Hon. Wilfred Lusi (Member) 
• Hon. Caroline Omaya (Member) 
• Hon. Hellen Kiende (Member) 

3. DATE OF JUDGEMENT 

22nd AUGUST 2025 

4. PARTIES INVOLVED

ARYEH MOVEMENT LIMITED (The Appellant who instituted the Appeal) Aryeh Movement is a unity project for generations and a development of a transgenerational story telling ecosystem, that utilizes Bible Scriptures to build character, impact and transform society through mindset change. They focus on empowering  individuals, families, communities in Africa and beyond to hone in on their individual and  collective human resilience, strengthening it to bring hope. 

CYNTHIA BELDINA AKOTH (The 1st Respondent) 

III. KENYA COPYRIGHT BOARD (The 2nd Respondent who failed to show up or file  submissions) Herein after referred to as KECOBO. This body was established under the  Copyright Act of Kenya, 2001 (as amended 2019) to administer matters relating to  Copyrights in Kenya.

5. FACTS OF THE CASE 

The 1st Respondent through an application to the 2nd respondent, sought revocation of copyright registration of literary works which had been registered under the Appellant’s name.  The 1`st Respondent claimed authorship of this literary work which had been published by the  Appellant through their official website. The uncertainty in the authorship, ownership and  copyrightability of the literary works was especially the central issue which escalated to the  2nd Respondent for direction. The 1st Respondent was claiming ownership over such literary  works which had been published by the Appellant with aid by others not in court including  some aids from Artificial Intelligence.  

In its decision the 2nd Respondent invoked section 5(g) of the Copyright Act of Kenya,2001  (as amended 2019) and regulation 4(7) of the Copyright Regulations, 2020. The Board  claimed that these two legislations conferred it with a jurisdiction to hear the matter. Upon  establishing such jurisdiction, the Board indeed found that there existed no agreement between  the parties to allow the 1st Respondent to publish such work. Having established so, the Board  proceeded to direct the parties to meet and draft a written agreement on the percentage of  copyright interest that would be registered on the literally work within 7 days lest it expunges  the registered work. 

Having not been satisfied by the direction of the Kenya Copyright Board, ARYEH  MOVEMENT LIMITED filed an appeal with the Kenya Copyright Tribunal on the legality of  the impugned decision by the Kenya Copyright Board 

6. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 

THE APPELLANT 

a) KECOBO had no legal authority or jurisdiction to direct the parties as it did and  the officer in charge of the Board had not been empowered by law to perform such  functions as he did, hence the Board acted ultra vires. 

b) In its determination the Board had considered extraneous factors which could not  be otherwise considered 

c) CYNTHIA BELDINA AKOTH AKELLO (The 1st Respondent) had not authored  the literal work in dispute.

d) The Kenya Copyright Tribunal had been empowered by law to hear the appeal.

THE 1ST RESPONDENT 

a) The Appeal failed to properly invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for want of  lodgment of an Affidavit in support thus defective. 

b) The Appellant had supposedly admitted the 1st Respondent’s authorship c) The Appeal was defective as it supposedly sought to pre-emptively impeach an  intended and/or threatened action. 

d) KECOBO acted within its legal jurisdiction and legal authority in directing the  parties as it did. 

It is important to note that despite the 2nd Respondent, KECOBO being included in the joinder, it did not appear before the tribunal or file any submissions in the case even after being served with  sermons which were effectively delivered. 

7. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 

➢ Whether the appeal was properly before the Copyright Tribunal 

➢ Whether KECOBO acted ultra vires to find, hold and observe as it did.

➢ Ownership, authorship and Copyrightability of the subject literary works i.e I. Whether The Works Were Commissioned Works 

Whether Works Generated By Artificial Intelligence (Ai) Are Eligible For  Copyright Protection 

ANALYSIS OF THE LAW/ LEGAL REASONING 

WHETHER THE APPEAL WAS PROPERLY BEFORE THE COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL 

The Copyright Tribunal found that the appeal was properly before the court on  grounds THAT:

a) The first Respondent had not invoked any particular/specific provision of the law  to support her claim that the Appellant did not use the right procedure for instituting  the appeal. She even admits in her submission start there was no an express  provision mandating an affidavit for every notice of appeal. 

b) The Appellant had the burden of proof and did so through provision of relevant  documents that it presented to the court even in the absence of the support in the  affidavit. 

c) There was adjustified cause of action according to the definition of the term “cause  of actions” as sited by the house of Lords in the case of Letang v Coper1. 

d) The contention by the first Respondent that the appeal was preemptive and mature  was incorrect since under the doctrine of justiciability and supplementary doctrines  of ripeness, avoidance and mootness had also referring the definition of  “justiciability” under the Black Law Dictionary, the matter in hand was proper to  be examined by the Copyright Tribunal (the matter required to be decided hence  the dispute was ripe). 

WHETHER KECOBO ACTED ULTRA VIRES ITS JURISDICTION/LEGAL AUTHORITY IN DIRECTING THE PARTIES AS IT DID IN ITS IMPUGNED LETTER 

The Copyright Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction set out in section 5(g) of the  Copyright Act of Kenya 2001 (as amended 2019) as well as regulation 4(7) of the  Copyright regulations of 2020in directing the parties as it did impugned letter;  hence the Copyright Tribunal set aside the decision by KECOBO and nullified it  based on the following grounds THAT: 

a) Section 21(1) of the Copyright Act of Kenya, 2001 (as amended 2019), any  unsatisfied party can file an appeal with the Copyright Tribunal. 

b) Section 48(4)(a) empowers the Copyright Tribunal to hear disputes arising  from copyright registration. 

c) Regulation 4(7) of the Copyright regulation, 2020 only empowers  KECOBO to correct errors in Copyright register, which was not the case because the case before the tribunal was merely based on the dispute over  the authorship and entitlement of the literary work and this jurisdiction  merely lied with Copyright Tribunal but not KECOBO. 

d) Article 5(2) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of literary and  Artistic works stipulates that copyright are automatic upon creation and thus  registration is optional 

e) Judicial review principles from Anisminic v foreign compensation  commission2as well the case of Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board and  two others v Centre for human rights and Democracy and eleven others3,  established that made without statutory authority to do so are null and such  was the direction by KECOBO the Tribunal held that the deputy executive director was legally capable of  communicating KECOBO’S decisions under section 12 of the Copyright  Act of Kenya 2001. However, the court observed that holding didn’t  validate the substance of the KECOBO’S decisions. 

III. OWNERSHIP, AUTHORSHIP AND COPYRIGHTABILITY OF THE  SUBJECT LITERARY WORKS. 

1. Whether the works were commissioned works 

Clinging into the scope of the appeal (legality of the KECOBO’s impugned decision)  the Copyright Tribunal stepped away from determining authorship, ownership and  copyrightability of the works in disputes siting insufficient evidence before it. This  holding was based on the following grounds THAT: 

a) The document provided by the Appellant listed roles played by various individuals in the making of the work and failed to expressly clarify who  authored such work 

b) The Appellant in his submissions had acknowledged the 1st Respondent’s’ moral rights in the work and legal concention of the Appellant statements under section 32 (1)(a) was to entitle the 1st Respondent to claim authorship.  However, this legal presumption appeared to nonetheless be disputed by the  Appellant from his grounds of appeal. 

c) Though the Appellant acknowledged the 1st Respondent’s’ moral rights in the  literary works, this only could not qualify such works as commission, as there must be an agreement as demonstrated by section 31(1) of the Copyright Act  of Kenya 2001 as amended 2019. 

Whether works generated by AI are eligible for Copyright Protection. The Copyright Tribunal declined to determine the copyrightability of the disputed  literary works citing scope of the appeal (legality of the KECOBO’s impugned  decision) and uncertainty/insufficient evidence provided before the tribunal. It is of importance also to note that the Copyright Tribunal observed that, in order for  literary works to be protected under copyright law of Kenya, the must be enough  human intervention and effort procured in making of such work. The tribunal settled  on the above holding based on the ground THAT: 

a) There is no express law in Kenya directing on the copyrightability of AI  generated works /materials; hence the criteria for eligibility must be accessed  under the requirement of originality as stipulated under section 22(3) of the  Copyright Act of Kenya (as amended 2019) 

b) Neither of the parties produced the subject literary works before the tribunal  for scrutinization whether it contained elements of AI 

c) Developed jurisdiction such United Kingdom and United States of America  require creativity input form humans and purely AI generated works/computer  generated works do not qualify for Copyright Protection. 

CONSOLIDATED FINAL FINDINGS 

➢ The appeal was properly before the court because it was neither procedurally defective nor  premature 

➢ KECOBO did not have jurisdiction/legal authority to give directions as it did.

➢ The impugned decision by KECOBO was set aside in its entirety. 

➢ Each party was to bear its own cost. 

10. RATIO DECIDENDI 

➢ KECOBO has no jurisdiction to hear disputes arising from ownership or authorship of  registered copyright works. This mandate is entrusted with the Copyright Tribunal ➢ For commissioning of works to be legal there must be an agreement on the same ➢ AI/computer generated material/ works are supposedly not eligible for copyright protection  unless enough human effort and intervention was demonstrated 

11. CONCLUSION 

The KECOBO’s mandate is merely administrative in nature but not adjudicatory

Reference(S):

1( 1964) 2 ALL ER 929, pg 934

2[1969] 2 AC 147 

3[2014] KESC 9 (KLR)