Title: Nonny Gathoni Njenga & Another V Catherine Masitsa & Another [2014] Eklr Venue: High Court Of Kenya At Nairobi, Milimani Commercial & Admirality Division Case Id: Civil Case No. 490 0f 2013 Authoring Judge: E O K Ogola J. Date Of Decision: 12 March 2014 Plaintiff: 1. Nonny Gathoni Njenga 2. Jane Wambui Odewale Defendants: 1. Catherine Masitsa 2. Standard Group Kenya Keywords: ICT, Telecommunication RULING: 1. The Plaintiffs herein filed the Notice of Motion dated 19th November 2013 and amended on 17thJanuary 2014 seeking for orders, inter alia, that the Defendants be committed to prison for contempt of Court. 2. The Application came up for hearing on 23rd January 2014 when Counsel for the 1stDefendant/Respondent raised an issue with regard to the admissibility of the DVDs annexed by the Plaintiffs to demonstrate the contemptuous conduct of the Defendants. 3. Briefly, on 8th November 2013 pursuant to the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion filed on even date, this Court made orders, among others, restraining the Respondents either from infringing in any way on the Applicants’ Copyright in the Literary work “WEDDINGS WITH NONI GATHONI” and dubbed “THE BAILEYS WEDDING SHOW WITH NONI GATHONI”. It is the Applicant’s case that the aforesaid orders notwithstanding, the Defendants/Respondents went ahead to infringe on the Applicants’ said copyrighted literary work in violation of the Court’s Orders. 4. During the hearing aforesaid, Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the 1st breach of the orders occurred on 9th November 2013 when the Standard Media Group through KTN proceeded to broadcast in the Samantha’s Bridal Show, the contents and substance which were substantially copied and reproduced from the works against which injunctive orders had been issued. 5. He further submitted that the 2nd instance of breach occurred on 17th November 2013 when the 2nd Defendant acting on the instructions of the 1st Defendant proceeded to broadcast, in the Samantha’s Bridal Show, works which infringed on the copyrights of the 1st Plaintiff and the injunctive orders. To this end, it was Counsel’s submissions that the Plaintiffs had annexed three (3) DVDs that demonstrated the contemptuous conduct of the respondents. 6. It is with regard to the aforesaid DVDs that Counsel for the 1st Defendant raised the issue of their admissibility as evidence before this Court. It was Counsel’s submission that the said DVD evidence was inadmissible as it was secured illegally from Bauhaus Limited and the same constituted an infringement of property rights. He further submitted that the said DVDs were