- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- with Inhouse Counsel
- in Asia
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
Factual Background
The case of Radio Africa Limited v Standard Group PLC & Another arose from an earlier judgment delivered on 20 September 2024, in which the Court declared that the Plaintiff held exclusive rights to broadcast live audio commentary of the 2019/2020 English Premier League in Kenya. The Court found that the 1st Defendant infringed those rights by broadcasting three matches: Leicester v Wolves, Newcastle United v Arsenal, and Manchester United v Chelsea, on 11 August 2019. Following this finding, the Court directed that an inquiry be conducted to determine the appropriate quantum of damages payable to the Plaintiff.
Pursuant to this directive, the Plaintiff elected to seek damages based on a reasonable royalty under Section 35 of the Copyright Act of Kenya. It claimed USD 1,782,000, representing the license fee allegedly paid under a content syndication agreement for three seasons of English Premier League broadcasting rights. The Defendant challenged this claim, arguing that the infringement was limited in scope and that the amount claimed was excessive and unsupported.
Issues for Determination
The principal issue before the Court was the appropriate quantum of damages payable to the Plaintiff for the infringement of its copyright by the 1st Defendant.
Arguments of Counsel
The Plaintiff’s case was anchored on the statutory provision allowing for damages to be assessed based on a reasonable royalty. It contended that the sum of USD 1,782,000 represented what the Defendant would have paid as a licensee for the relevant broadcasting rights and should therefore be awarded in full. The Plaintiff maintained that this figure reflected the commercial value of the rights infringed.
On the other hand, the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff’s claim was fundamentally flawed. It emphasised that the infringement established by the Court was confined to only three matches and did not extend across the entire three-season period relied upon by the Plaintiff. The Defendant further contended that the Plaintiff had failed to strictly prove the alleged license fee, particularly given that the agreement relied upon was heavily redacted. It urged the Court to adopt a prorated approach, either based on prevailing market rates or on a per-match valuation derived from the Plaintiff’s admitted license fee, which would result in a significantly lower award.
Decision of the Court
In resolving the issue, the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for USD 1,782,000, holding that it was disproportionate to the scope of the infringement and unsupported by sufficient evidence. The Court emphasised that damages based on reasonable royalty must be proportionate to the actual extent of infringement and must be strictly proved.
The Court adopted a prorated approach to the assessment of damages. Relying on the Plaintiff’s admitted license fee of USD 495,000 for the 2019/2020 season covering 190 matches, the Court calculated a per-match value and applied it to the three infringing matches. On this basis, the Court awarded the sum of USD 7,815.78 as damages. The Court also ordered that interest be paid on the awarded sum at court rates from the date of filing the suit until full payment.
Legal Commentaries
This ruling provides a clear exposition of the principles governing the assessment of damages in copyright infringement cases, particularly in the context of broadcasting rights. The Court reaffirmed that reasonable royalty damages must reflect the amount that a willing licensee would pay under comparable circumstances, thereby grounding such awards in commercial reality. It also underscored the importance of proportionality, making it clear that damages must correspond strictly to the scope and duration of the infringement.
Additionally, the decision reinforces the evidentiary requirement that claims akin to special damages must be strictly proved. The Court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s global claim highlights the judiciary’s reluctance to accept inflated or speculative figures in the absence of credible supporting evidence. The reliance on comparable agreements and market-based calculations further demonstrates a pragmatic approach to determining damages in intellectual property disputes.
In conclusion, the Court adopted a measured and principled approach in quantifying damages, rejecting an inflated claim in favour of a proportionate and evidence-based award. The decision underscores the necessity of aligning damages with the actual extent of infringement while ensuring that awards remain compensatory rather than punitive. It stands as a significant authority on the application of reasonable royalty principles and the broader framework for assessing damages in copyright infringement cases.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]