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

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
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

Select target paragraph3