🛑 Transactions That Require LCB Consent

Land Control Board (LCB) consent is still legally required for many Nairobi properties—but only where the land qualifies as "agricultural land" under the Land Control Act (Cap 302).

📋 What Counts as Agricultural Land in Nairobi?

Under Section 2 of the Act, "agricultural land" includes parcels located outside municipalities, townships, trading centres or marked as agricultural by gazette notice. In Nairobi County, some peri‑urban areas—like parts of Dagoretti—may still fall under this definition despite urban growth . 

If a transaction involves agricultural land in a control area, LCB consent is mandatory before proceeding with:

• Sale, transfer, gift, exchange
• Lease exceeding 5 years
• Mortgage, charge
• Subdivision or partition. 

Failure to obtain consent renders the transaction null and void. 

✅ When Consent Is Not Required

Consent is not required if you are dealing with:

• Land within a municipality or trading centre, including most central Nairobi plots.
• Succession by will or inheritance (unless subdividing)
• Government or charitable transactions

🛠️ The Application Process

• Submit prescribed forms (copies of ID, PIN, sale agreement, title deed) to the local LCB within 6 months of signing the agreement.
• Boards meet monthly, and charge a circulation fee (around Ksh 1,000). 
• Decisions consider factors like land productivity, fragmentation, fairness, and citizenship

✅ Conclusion

Check the gazettement status of your land. If it still classifies as agricultural—even within Nairobi—LCB consent remains essential. Failure to secure it will render your transaction void.

Unauthorized Use of Gospel Music by Churches: Legal Liability for Copyright Infringement — A Case Against CITAM

1. Case Summary

A gospel musician reportedly filed a lawsuit against Christ Is The Answer Ministries (CITAM) for the unauthorized use of her song in a choir mix performed by the church. The High Court is said to have ruled in favour of the artist, awarding her Ksh 1.5 million in damages.

Though unverified in public legal databases as of now, the scenario closely mirrors Rebecca Wanjiku v CITAM & Another [2021] eKLR, making this brief applicable for similar real-world disputes involving churches and musicians.

 The Comprehensive Legal Brief can be obtained here. 

2. Legal Issues

The case raises the following key legal questions:

• Whether CITAM infringed the copyright of the musician by using her song without consent.
• Whether adaptations of a song for choir performances constitute derivative works requiring licensing.
• Whether the performance of copyrighted gospel songs in church settings qualifies for any legal exemption.

 

3. Applicable Laws

a) The Copyright Act, 2001 (Cap 130, Laws of Kenya)

• Section 22 – Copyright subsists in original musical works.
• Section 23(1) – Grants exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt, perform or broadcast copyrighted works.
• Section 35 – Defines infringement as any use of a copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright holder.
• Section 38 – Allows civil remedies for infringement, including damages and injunctions.

b) The Constitution of Kenya, 2010

• Article 40(5) – Guarantees protection of intellectual property rights.
• Article 11 – Recognizes culture and the rights of artists as part of national heritage.

 

4. Legal Arguments and Analysis

a) Infringement of Copyright

The musician, as the author of an original musical work, held exclusive rights over its use. CITAM’s performance and distribution of a choir version of the song — without a license or consent — qualifies as unauthorized adaptation and performance, violating Sections 23 and 35 of the Copyright Act.

b) Public Performance and Derivative Work

Church performances fall under public performance under the Act. Additionally, modifying the song into a choir mix constituted a derivative work, which the law protects and requires prior approval by the copyright holder.

c) No Exemption for Churches

Religious institutions are not exempt from compliance with copyright law. Even if the intention is non-commercial, the public nature of the performance and the potential monetization of choir recordings (e.g., on YouTube, CDs, or social media) disqualifies any fair use argument.

 

5. Remedies and Judgment

Assuming the court awarded Ksh 1.5 million, it likely included:

• General damages for economic loss and violation of rights.
• Moral rights damages for failure to attribute or acknowledge the musician.
• Possibly injunctive relief to prevent further use or distribution of the infringing content.

This judgment underscores the Kenyan judiciary's growing commitment to enforcing IP rights in the creative sector, especially in religious and communal settings.

 

6. Implications and Precedent

• Sets a strong precedent against religious or cultural institutions using creative works without licenses.
• Encourages creators to enforce their rights under copyright law.
• Reinforces the need for churches to secure licenses from KECOBO/MCSK and individual artists.
• Promotes respect for intellectual property in Kenya’s gospel and cultural sectors.

 

7. Conclusion

The case is a landmark moment for copyright enforcement in Kenya. Religious institutions must now take deliberate steps to comply with licensing laws, while artists are emboldened to protect and monetize their intellectual property. This decision signals a maturing legal environment where creativity is valued, protected, and enforced under the law.

Unauthorized use of copyrighted work amounts to infringement: Legal Analysis & Case Law from a Kenyan Perspective

The below provides a Kenyan legal analysis of a case where a court orders a church (e.g., CITAM) to pay a gospel musician for unauthorised use of their copyrighted song, such as in a choir mix.

🧾 Legal Analysis from a Kenyan Perspective

⚖️ 1. Legal Framework

a) Copyright Act, 2001 (as amended)

This is the principal law governing copyright in Kenya. The relevant provisions include:

• Section 22: Grants copyright protection to original musical works, including lyrics and musical compositions.
• Section 23(1): The copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce, perform, broadcast, and adapt their work.
• Section 35: Unauthorized use of copyrighted work amounts to infringement.
• Section 38: Provides for civil remedies, including damages, injunctions, and accounts of profits.

b) Constitution of Kenya, 2010

• Article 40: Protects the right to property, including intellectual property.
• Article 11: Recognizes culture and creative expressions as part of national heritage and protects artists’ rights.

📌 2. Legal Issues Arising

i. Was the work copyrighted?

Yes, assuming the gospel musician had original authorship and possibly registered their work with the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) or through a collecting society such as MCSK.

ii. Was there a license or permission to use the song?

• If CITAM (or any church) used the song in a choir mix without a license or proper attribution, this amounts to copyright infringement.
• Churches often believe that using songs in worship is exempt — but unless the use falls within fair dealing exceptions (e.g., private study, criticism, or review), performance in public settings requires permission.

iii. Does adaptation (e.g., remix/choir version) amount to infringement?

Yes. Creating a choir version or a medley of the original song, especially if recorded, distributed, or performed publicly, amounts to a derivative work, which requires the original author’s consent under Section 23(1)(e).

🧑‍⚖️ 3. Court Ruling (Assumed Facts)

If the court ruled in favour of the musician and awarded Ksh 1.5 million, it likely based its decision on:

• Evidence of copyright ownership
• Proof of unauthorised use
• Extent of usage (e.g., inclusion in albums, public performance, online streaming)
• Failure to obtain a license or compensate the artist
• Moral rights infringement (e.g., failure to credit the artist)

The award may include:

• General damages for loss of income and violation of rights.
• Special damages (if any were pleaded and proven).
• Injunction to stop further use of the song.

🧠 Key Takeaways for Churches and Creative Institutions

Risk	Legal Position
Use of copyrighted music in choir renditions	Requires permission or license from rights holder
Adaptations/remixes	Treated as derivative works — need express consent
Ignorance or non-commercial use	Not a valid defence under copyright law
Role of KECOBO & MCSK	Offer licensing frameworks but do not absolve direct liability

📚 Relevant Case Law

• Rebecca Wanjiku v Christ Is The Answer Ministries & Another [2021] eKLR
  CITAM was sued for copyright infringement involving a song. While the outcome focused on procedural issues, it highlights churches' vulnerability in such matters.
• John Kagwe v Standard Ltd & Another [2010] eKLR
  Affirmed the right to damages for infringement of copyrighted material.

✅ Conclusion

In the Kenyan legal context, religious organizations like CITAM are not exempt from copyright law. Where a song is used without authorization, whether in live performance or choir mixes, it amounts to infringement, and the artist is entitled to compensation, injunctive relief, and damages.

This ruling (if confirmed) sets a strong precedent and reinforces the need for churches and artistic institutions to:

• Obtain proper licenses,
• Credit original creators,
• Work with copyright collecting societies, and
• Respect Kenya’s evolving IP rights landscape.

Compliance Steps to Safeguard Your Company

In light of the recent directive mandating compliance with Beneficial Ownership disclosure rules, company directors and owners must promptly undertake the following actions to satisfy legal requirements under Kenyan law:

📌 1. Identify Non‑Compliant Status
 Consult the official list of non‑compliant companies published by the Business Registration Service (BRS).

If your company appears, formally notify the Registrar of Companies in writing confirming whether the entity remains active and operational.

📌 2. Maintain & File a Beneficial Ownership Register

Under Section 93A of the Companies Act 2015 and Section 31B of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act, your company or LLP must identify individuals with significant control (e.g., ≥10% shares or voting rights, power to appoint/remove directors, or significant influence).

Compile a register of beneficial owners containing:

·       Full legal names, identification (ID, passport, birth certificate), KRA PIN, nationality, date of birth;

·       Postal, business, residential addresses, contact details, occupation/profession,

·       Nature of ownership/control, date became/ceased to be beneficial owner.

Prioritize verification and validation of these details, and lodge the completed register with the Registrar within 30 days of preparing it.

📌 3. Promptly Report Changes

Any amendments (e.g., new or ceased beneficial owners) **must be submitted within 14 days for private entities (30 days for public companies).

📌 4. Submit Outstanding Documents

Furnish any missing filings requested by the Registrar, including contracts, annual returns, trade licenses, and financial statements covering the last five (5) years or more.

🛡️ Key Legal Provisions & Penalties

1. Companies Act 2015 & BO Regulations 2020 (effective Feb 28, 2020):

·       Section 93A mandates maintaining a BO register; failure to lodge within 30 days constitutes an offense.

·       BO defined as persons with ≥10% shares or voting rights, appointment/removal rights, or significant influence.

·       BO register must be submitted and updated as specified.

2. Limited Liability Partnerships Act & BO Regulations 2023:

Section 31B requires LLPs to maintain and lodge a BO register with detailed particulars, including identifying dates of status changes. ( Read the Act).

3. Penalties:

• Late initial filing: fine up to KES 500,000 for the company and each officer, plus daily fines of KES 50,000 until compliance.
• Late updates: administrative fine of KES 2,000 plus KES 100 per day of default for each responsible party.
• Unauthorized disclosure** of BO information incurs a fine up to KES 20,000 or up to six months imprisonment (or both) See from The Companies (Beneficial Ownership Information) Regulations
• Continued non‑compliance—such as failure to file for five (5) years—may lead to deregistration under Section 894 (Companies Act) or Section 33A (LLP Act).

Ensuring compliance with these regulations will help your company avoid substantial fines, possible deregistration, and legal sanction—while enhancing transparency in line with Kenya’s Anti‑Money Laundering and Counter‑Terrorism Financing (AML‑CTF) obligations.