Tribunal clears Matata in copyright row over ‘Mpishi (Aiyaya)’ hit song » Capital News

NAIROBI, Kenya, Aug 2 – The Copyright Tribunal has dismissed a claim by music producer Kelvin Njogu Murimi, popularly known as DJ Keville, against Kenyan music group Matata, ruling that their hit song “Mpishi (Aiyaya)” does not infringe on his work.

In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Tribunal Chairperson Elizabeth Lenjo declared that “Mpishi (Aiyaya)” did not infringe on DJ Keville’s “Bum Dum Riddim”, dismissing the producer’s claim of copyright violation.

“We are not satisfied that the Claimants undertook any proscribed conduct… nor are we satisfied that the Claimants had any access to the Respondent’s work,” the Tribunal ruled.

It further directed Keville to withdraw a YouTube takedown notice issued against Matata’s song within 48 hours, failing which YouTube must reinstate the video “in the Claimants’ favour.”

The Tribunal, which stopped short of awarding costs directing parties to bear their expenses, observed that both “Mpishi (Aiyaya)” and “Bum Dum Riddim” are derivative works inspired by I Wayne’s reggae hit “Can’t Satisfy Her”, meaning they could legally co-exist as separate compositions.

“Due to the very nature of this genre of music, there is a possibility for two songs to sound substantially similar, especially where they are derivative works of an existing original,” the judgment read in part.

The ruling also barred DJ Keville, who had sought Sh1.8 million in damages, from filing any further copyright complaints against Matata’s song.

“A permanent injunction is hereby issued restraining the Respondent… from issuing further copyright infringement claims and/or takedown notices relating to the ‘Mpishi (Aiyaya)’ sound recording.”

Wider implications

The dispute, filed in April 2025, arose after DJ Keville accused Matata of copying elements of his beat, claiming he had shared the instrumental with the band in December 2024.

Matata denied this, arguing that their track — featuring Sauti Sol’s Bien-Aimé Baraza — was conceived, recorded, and finalized months before any such exchange took place.

The case exposed gaps in Kenya’s understanding of musical copyrights, especially in an era of Gengetone and remix culture, where artists frequently draw inspiration from older hits.

The Tribunal noted this trend, issuing a warning to creators against infringements.

“Caution must be borne in the face of Section 35(1) of the Copyright Act, which provides that copyright shall be infringed by a person who, without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does… an act controlled by the copyright.”

By clarifying that derivative works can still enjoy copyright protection, the Tribunal signaled a growing recognition of the creative realities of Kenya’s music industry.