Kenyan Genge musician Nonini is set to receive Ksh3 million in damages after a Nairobi court ruled in his favour in a defamation case against former Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) chief executive officer Ezekiel Mutua. The ruling, delivered on October 26, 2026, followed a legal dispute over statements Mutua made about the musician that the court found were likely to damage his reputation. Nonini, whose real name is Hubert Mbuku Nakitare, was awarded Ksh2.5 million in general damages and an additional Ksh500,000 in exemplary and aggravated damages. The court also directed Mutua to remove the statements found to be defamatory from his social media account within 14 days of the judgment and ordered him to pay the costs of the suit. Reacting to the decision, Nonini took to social media to celebrate the outcome, signalling that the ruling marked an important victory in his pursuit of justice.
The Genge musician expressed his reaction through a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, shortly after the judgment was delivered. In his message, Nonini wrote, “Imm’a need that by Monday! Game is Chess not Checkers! #Mgenge2ru.” The post reflected his satisfaction with the court’s decision and quickly drew attention to the financial award. Nonini also shared details of the judgment, confirming that the court had awarded him Ksh2.5 million in general damages and Ksh500,000 in exemplary damages. He further noted that the statements identified by the court had to be removed within 14 days, highlighting that the ruling involved both financial compensation and corrective action.
The Ksh3 million award represents the outcome of a dispute that began after Nonini raised concerns about royalty payments and financial management within the music copyright sector. The musician had been a member of MCSK for 24 years before deciding to leave the organisation in May 2022. He cited the small royalty payments he received despite his lengthy career in the music industry as a major reason for his decision. His departure came amid wider concerns among musicians about the amounts distributed to artists and the need for greater transparency in the management of music royalties. The disagreement later escalated into a legal battle after statements made about Nonini became the focus of a defamation lawsuit.
The dispute gained further attention in January 2024, when MCSK announced that it would distribute Ksh20,000 in royalties to each of its members. The announcement attracted criticism over the amounts paid to artists, with questions emerging about the relationship between the organisation’s collections, operating expenses and royalty distributions. Nonini subsequently referred to a letter dated January 29, 2024, which he said Mutua had addressed to the Kenya Copyright Board, also known as KECOBO. According to the musician’s account in court, the document contained details about MCSK’s collections, distributions and expenditure. He stated that the figures indicated the society had collected Ksh109 million between January and December 2023 and spent Ksh57 million on employee salaries.
Nonini said he shared the information on his X account as part of his criticism of the royalty system and the amounts paid to musicians. According to his case, Mutua responded with statements that damaged his reputation and later made further claims about him during a radio interview. The musician argued that the remarks went beyond a disagreement about copyright royalties and instead portrayed him negatively before the public. He consequently filed a defamation suit seeking legal redress for the alleged harm caused by the statements. The case placed the focus on whether the remarks were defamatory and whether they were likely to lower the musician’s standing in the eyes of other people.
During the court proceedings, Mutua denied defaming Nonini and challenged the basis of the lawsuit. He dismissed allegations of corruption within MCSK and argued that the musician had made broad claims that he could not substantiate. Mutua maintained that the case lacked merit, disputing Nonini’s allegations and defending his position in the dispute. However, the court examined the statements complained of and assessed their potential effect on the musician’s reputation. In its judgment, the court concluded that the remarks were likely to portray Nonini in a damaging light and found that he had proved his case on the balance of probabilities.
Milimani Commercial Magistrate James Gitau found that the statements portrayed Nonini, who is based in the United States, as a fugitive who had left Kenya to evade the law. The court considered this portrayal damaging because it could cause members of the public to form a negative opinion of the musician. In explaining its decision, the court stated that the remarks were likely to cause reputational damage because they presented the plaintiff as someone living outside the country to avoid legal consequences. The judgment also noted that the statements had been published and were likely to lower his standing in the minds of reasonable members of society. These findings formed a central part of the court’s decision to award damages in favour of the musician.
In determining the amount of compensation, the court considered the nature of the statements and the potential harm they could cause to Nonini’s reputation. It also took into account previous defamation cases in which plaintiffs had received awards of Ksh2 million and Ksh1.5 million over publications found to have harmed their reputations. The court ultimately awarded Nonini Ksh2.5 million in general damages and Ksh500,000 in exemplary and aggravated damages, bringing the total to Ksh3 million. General damages compensate for harm to reputation and related losses that are not easily measured in financial terms. Exemplary and aggravated damages serve a different purpose within the court’s assessment of the conduct involved and the circumstances surrounding the defamatory statements.
Beyond the financial award, the order requiring Mutua to remove the statements within 14 days of the October 26, 2026, judgment adds another important element to the ruling. The direction addresses the continued availability of the material identified by the court as defamatory. Social media posts can reach wide audiences and remain accessible long after they are first published, which can extend the effects of a damaging statement. Removing the material may therefore help limit its continued circulation, although the extent of any lasting reputational impact cannot be determined from the judgment alone. The order to pay the costs of the suit also means that the court addressed the legal expenses associated with the proceedings.
The case also brings renewed attention to longstanding concerns about music royalties in Kenya and the relationship between artists and copyright management organisations. Musicians depend on royalty systems to collect and distribute money generated by the use of their creative work. When artists believe that payments do not reflect their contributions or that financial information is unclear, disputes can arise over accountability and the management of the funds. Nonini’s departure from MCSK after 24 years of membership and his subsequent criticism of royalty payments formed the background to the dispute with Mutua. However, the defamation judgment specifically addressed the statements complained of and their effect on the musician’s reputation, rather than resolving every question surrounding the broader management of music royalties.
For Nonini, the ruling marks a significant legal victory following a dispute that extended beyond public criticism of royalty payments. The Ksh3 million award provides financial compensation, while the removal order addresses the statements the court found defamatory. His public reaction showed that he welcomed the outcome and regarded it as an important milestone in the case. The decision also demonstrates that public disagreements involving prominent personalities can lead to legal consequences when statements cross the line into defamation. Whether the judgment will prompt further developments in the dispute remains to be seen, but the court’s findings have established the outcome of the case at this stage.
The ruling against Ezekiel Mutua closes an important chapter in Nonini’s legal battle over statements he argued had damaged his reputation. By awarding Ksh3 million in damages, ordering the removal of the defamatory material and directing Mutua to pay the costs of the suit, the court granted the musician the remedies specified in its judgment. The dispute began against the backdrop of disagreements over music royalties but ultimately centred on the legal consequences of statements made about Nonini. His response on social media captured his satisfaction with the outcome, while the judgment underscored the importance of protecting an individual’s reputation from defamatory publications. For the Genge star, the decision represents a major legal win after years of controversy surrounding royalty payments and his public exchanges with the former MCSK boss.
