Kenyan Genge artist Nonini will receive Ksh3 million in damages after a Nairobi court ruled in his favour in a defamation lawsuit against former Music Copyright Society of Kenya chief executive officer Ezekiel Mutua. The decision, issued on October 26, 2026, followed a legal conflict regarding remarks Mutua made about the performer that the tribunal determined were likely to harm his standing. Nonini, legally named Hubert Mbuku Nakitare, was granted Ksh2.5 million in general damages alongside an extra Ksh500,000 in exemplary and aggravated damages. The judiciary also instructed Mutua to delete the remarks deemed defamatory from his online profile within 14 days of the ruling and mandated him to cover the legal expenses of the lawsuit. Responding to the verdict, Nonini used online platforms to celebrate the result, indicating that the ruling represented a major milestone in his quest for legal redress.
The Genge artist shared his thoughts through a statement on X, previously known as Twitter, shortly after the verdict was announced. In his message, Nonini posted, “Imm’a need that by Monday! Game is Chess not Checkers! #Mgenge2ru.” The message highlighted his happiness with the judicial outcome and quickly drew focus to the financial compensation. Nonini also published specifics of the verdict, confirming that the court had granted him Ksh2.5 million in general compensation and Ksh500,000 in punitive damages. He further pointed out that the remarks identified by the court needed to be taken down within 14 days, emphasizing that the judgment included both monetary relief and remedial measures.
The Ksh3 million compensation stems from a disagreement that started after Nonini voiced worries regarding royalty payouts and fiscal administration inside the music copyright sector. The artist had belonged to MCSK for 24 years prior to choosing to exit the institution in May 2022. He pointed to the minimal royalty disbursements he obtained despite his lengthy career in the entertainment sector as a primary factor for his choice. His exit arrived amid broader anxieties among performers concerning the funds distributed to creators and the necessity for enhanced openness in the handling of music royalties. The dispute later escalated into a court battle after comments concerning Nonini turned into the center of a libel lawsuit.
The controversy attracted further notice in January 2024, when MCSK stated it would hand out Ksh20,000 in royalties to every one of its members. The announcement sparked criticism over the sums disbursed to creators, with inquiries arising concerning the connection between the institution’s collections, operational expenditures, and royalty allocations. Nonini subsequently referenced a correspondence dated January 29, 2024, which he claimed Mutua had sent to the Kenya Copyright Board, additionally referred to as KECOBO. According to the artist’s testimony in court, the paperwork featured specifics about MCSK’s collections, payouts, and spending. He indicated that the statistics showed the entity had gathered Ksh109 million between January and December 2023 and utilized Ksh57 million on staff salaries.
Nonini explained he distributed the data on his X profile as a component of his critique of the royalty framework and the sums disbursed to creators. Based on his legal filing, Mutua replied with remarks that harmed his standing and subsequently issued additional assertions about him during a broadcast interview. The performer contended that the comments extended past a disagreement concerning copyright royalties and instead painted him in an unfavorable light before the community. He consequently initiated a libel lawsuit requesting judicial remedy for the alleged harm triggered by the remarks. The litigation centered on whether the comments were libelous and whether they tended to lower the artist’s reputation in the eyes of others.
Throughout the court hearings, Mutua rejected defaming Nonini and challenged the foundation of the litigation. He dismissed claims of corruption within MCSK and argued that the performer had delivered sweeping assertions that he could not substantiate. Mutua maintained that the lawsuit lacked foundation, contesting Nonini’s claims and defending his stance in the controversy. Nevertheless, the court reviewed the remarks in question and evaluated their potential impact on the artist’s standing. In its ruling, the judiciary determined that the comments tended to cast Nonini in a detrimental light and concluded that he had established his case on the balance of probabilities.
Milimani Commercial Magistrate James Gitau determined that the remarks portrayed Nonini, who operates from the United States, as a fugitive who had departed Kenya to evade the law. The court regarded this depiction as harmful because it could prompt members of the community to develop an unfavorable perception of the artist. In clarifying its choice, the tribunal stated that the comments tended to trigger reputational harm because they presented the claimant as an individual residing abroad to dodge legal repercussions. The judgment additionally noted that the remarks had been published and tended to diminish his standing in the minds of reasonable members of society. These conclusions constituted a core element of the court’s choice to grant damages in support of the artist.
In calculating the compensation sum, the tribunal evaluated the nature of the remarks and the prospective harm they could inflict on Nonini’s reputation. It also factored in past defamation cases where claimants had obtained awards of Ksh2 million and Ksh1.5 million over publications determined to have injured their reputations. The court ultimately granted Nonini Ksh2.5 million in general damages and Ksh500,000 in exemplary and aggravated damages, bringing the aggregate to Ksh3 million. General damages address injury to standing and related losses that are not simply quantified in monetary terms. Punitive and aggravated damages serve a distinct role within the tribunal’s evaluation of the behavior involved and the context surrounding the defamatory remarks.
Beyond the monetary award, the directive mandating Mutua to delete the remarks within 14 days of the October 26, 2026, ruling introduces another significant element to the verdict. The instruction tackles the ongoing availability of the material identified by the court as libelous. Online posts can reach extensive audiences and remain viewable long after they are initially published, which can prolong the effects of a harmful assertion. Eliminating the content may therefore assist in restricting its continued distribution, although the extent of any lasting reputational effect cannot be ascertained from the ruling alone. The directive to cover the costs of the lawsuit also signifies that the court resolved the legal expenses tied to the hearings.
The lawsuit additionally brings renewed focus to enduring anxieties regarding music royalties in Kenya and the connection between creators and copyright administration entities. Performers rely on royalty mechanisms to gather and disburse capital generated by the utilization of their artistic output. When creators believe that disbursements do not match their efforts or that fiscal data is obscure, disputes can emerge concerning accountability and the administration of the funds. Nonini’s exit from MCSK after 24 years of membership and his subsequent critique of royalty payouts formed the backdrop to the dispute with Mutua. Nevertheless, the defamation ruling specifically addressed the remarks in question and their impact on the artist’s standing, rather than resolving every query surrounding the broader administration of music royalties.
For Nonini, the verdict signifies a notable legal triumph following a dispute that extended past public critique of royalty payouts. The Ksh3 million award supplies monetary compensation, while the removal directive addresses the remarks the court determined defamatory. His public reaction demonstrated that he welcomed the result and viewed it as a significant milestone in the litigation. The decision also illustrates that public disagreements involving prominent figures can lead to judicial repercussions when assertions cross the line into defamation. Whether the judgment will prompt further developments in the controversy remains to be observed, but the tribunal’s conclusions have fixed the result of the litigation at this stage.
The ruling against Ezekiel Mutua concludes a significant chapter in Nonini’s legal battle over remarks he argued had injured his standing. By granting Ksh3 million in damages, ordering the removal of the libelous material and instructing Mutua to cover the costs of the lawsuit, the court awarded the artist the remedies specified in its verdict. The dispute originated against the backdrop of disagreements concerning music royalties but ultimately focused on the legal repercussions of remarks issued concerning Nonini. His reaction on online platforms captured his contentment with the result, while the ruling emphasized the significance of safeguarding an individual’s reputation from defamatory publications. For the Genge star, the decision constitutes a major legal win after years of controversy surrounding royalty payouts and his public exchanges with the former MCSK head.