Court Orders Ezekiel Mutua to Pay Nonini KSh3 Million Over Defamatory Remarks

Former Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB) chief executive Ezekiel Mutua has been ordered to pay musician Hubert Mbuku Nakitare, popularly known as Nonini, KSh3 million after a Nairobi court found that remarks he published about the artist were defamatory.

Milimani Commercial Magistrate James Gitau awarded Nonini KSh2.5 million in general damages and a further KSh500,000 in exemplary and aggravated damages in a judgment delivered on Monday, 26 October 2026.

The court also ordered Mutua to remove the statements found to be defamatory from his social media account within 14 days and pay the costs of the case. <Cite refs={["turn848442search0"]}/>

The ruling marks a significant legal development in a dispute that grew out of a public disagreement over how royalties collected on behalf of Kenyan musicians were managed and distributed.

Court says remarks harmed Nonini’s reputation

In the judgment, Magistrate Gitau found that the statements could leave members of the public with the impression that Nonini had left Kenya to avoid the law.

The magistrate said the remarks had been published and were capable of damaging the musician’s standing in the eyes of the public.

The court concluded that Nonini had proved his defamation claim on a balance of probabilities, the standard of proof applied in civil cases. <Cite refs={["turn848442search0"]}/>

The award comprises compensation for reputational harm and an additional amount in exemplary and aggravated damages. The court also ordered Mutua to bear the legal costs of the suit.

How a royalties dispute reached court

The dispute dates back to Nonini’s criticism of MCSK’s royalty payments. The musician, who said he had been a member of the organisation for 24 years, left the society in May 2022, citing concerns over the payments made to artists.

The disagreement became more public in January 2024, when MCSK announced a royalty distribution of KSh20,000 per member. The announcement prompted questions from musicians and the wider public about the sums being collected and how much was reaching artists.

Nonini subsequently shared information about MCSK’s finances on social media, saying he wanted to draw attention to the management of musicians’ royalties.

According to the account presented in court, Mutua responded on X and later made further remarks during a radio interview. Nonini argued that the statements were false and damaging to his reputation. <Cite refs={["turn848442search0","turn848442search4"]}/>

Mutua contested the claim. He denied defaming the musician and disputed allegations of widespread corruption or theft involving artists’ royalties at MCSK. He argued that the accusations against the society were sweeping and that the suit lacked merit. <Cite refs={["turn848442search0"]}/>

The magistrate ultimately found in Nonini’s favour.

A reminder about public statements online

The judgment also brings the consequences of online accusations into focus. Public figures can face strong criticism, particularly when disputes concern organisations entrusted with managing money on behalf of others. But allegations that may damage another person’s reputation can also lead to legal action.

In this case, the court’s orders go beyond financial compensation. Mutua must remove the statements covered by the judgment within the specified period, as well as meet the costs of the proceedings.

The ruling concerns the particular remarks challenged in the suit. It should not be read as a general finding on every allegation raised during the wider dispute over musicians’ royalties.

The immediate next step is compliance with the court’s orders. Any further challenge or appeal would need to be confirmed through subsequent court records or statements from the parties.

About the Author

Maureen Onyango is a journalist passionate about storytelling, life coaching and spiritual lessons. She studied at the Kenya Institute of Management and enjoys telling stories that inform, inspire and empower communities.