Copyright shambles? Nyashinski unable to provide the Tecno contract, goes dark!
The court is poised to make a decision in a copyright infringement lawsuit involving renowned artist Nyamari “Nyashinski” Ongegu, who was sued by Nigerian music producer Sam Are Eliapenda over a lucrative endorsement deal he secured with Tecno Kenya Limited in May 2023.
Magistrate Selina Muchungi announced that she would render a judgment on June 10 after Nyashinski once again failed to furnish the court with the brand ambassadorial contract he signed with Tecno, as previously instructed.
The contract’s contents have been a point of contention since Sam Are announced his intention to sue Nyashinski last year, alleging that the rapper used the hit song “Wach Wach,” which he produced, to promote Tecno Camon 20 without obtaining his consent or providing compensation.
While Sam Are and Nyashinski each own 50% of the publishing rights to “Wach Wach,” the rapper possesses 100% of the master rights to the record.
CHECK OUT:
In a copyright lawsuit, the court asks Nyashinski to produce the Tecno contract
Based on the division of publishing rights, Sam Are contends in court documents that he is entitled to a portion of the endorsement deal’s proceeds, but Nyashinski has not cooperated.
In February of this year, Magistrate Muchungi ordered Nyashinski to produce the contract before the case’s next hearing on March 13. However, Nyashinski’s legal team, Humphrey & Co. Advocates, informed the court that they were unable to present the agreement.
They argued, “The brand ambassador agreement is subject to a non-disclosure agreement, a confidential agreement which we cannot produce in court.”
Subsequently, Magistrate Muchungi issued a new directive, instructing Nyashinski’s legal team to provide the contract within 14 days.
During the third hearing last month, Nyashinski’s legal representatives still had not produced the contract.
ALSO CHECK OUT:
Nyashinski’s lawyer, Eddie Omondi, contended that they could not disclose the contract without a formal written request from plaintiff Sam Are, outlining reasons for requiring the confidentiality agreement.
The magistrate then instructed David Katee, representing Sam Are, to file a formal application.
Nyashinski’s legal team was directed to submit a response to the application by the next hearing date on May 6.
However, on May 6, Nyashinski’s lawyers had not filed a response or produced the contract, despite Sam Are’s lawyer serving them with the application.
Nyashinski’s legal team claimed that their client was unavailable, but the magistrate rejected their request and ordered them to file a response to Sam Are’s application.
Both parties were instructed to file their submissions by June 10, when compliance would be confirmed, and a ruling date would be determined.
