SOL Generation Records Ltd has denied claims by nominated senator Crystal Asige it has violated her intellectual property rights in a Sh 5 million legal case.
In its defence witness statement, the Sol Generation, through lawyer Conrad Maloba strongly denied all her claims levelled against them.
While being cross-examined by lawyer Maloba, Asige conceded that the label holds 100% master rights under the agreement. However, she argued that Sauti Sol could not collect royalties owed to her because she did not sign the necessary agreements.
Despite her claims, she could not produce evidence proving that royalties were collected without her consent. The defendant asked trial judge Njoki Mwangi to dismiss her claims, saying her case had no merit.
Asige has filed a lawsuit against Sol Generation, accusing the music label of exploiting her disability to promote their brand and violating her intellectual property rights.
The allegations centers on several of her contributions to hit songs, including “Extravaganza” and “1919 to Forever,” as well as the handling of her royalties.
Asige told the court that her lyrics and melody were used in “Extravaganza,” a track from Sauti Sol’s Midnight Train album, without her consent. She was credited as a co-writer, but she claims no formal negotiations took place, nor did she receive any royalties for her work.
Asige detailed how she composed the third line of the song during a recording session at Snow-Ball Studio in Nyari Estate, Nairobi.
The senator also highlighted her involvement in another song, “1919 to Forever,” recorded as part of a birthday celebration project. She alleges the track was released on Sol Generation platforms without her knowledge of the agreement between the involved parties.
Asige learned later that a Sh 5 million deal had been struck, purportedly on her behalf, yet she received no payment.
Additionally, Asige claims her solo song “Lenga,” which gained traction on social media, was shared on Sol Generation’s platforms without proper compensation. While she acknowledged that the label offered her development training in exchange for her copyrights, she described the agreement as ambiguous and not reflective of standard contract norms.
Asige further accused the label of using her disability as a marketing strategy to solicit funds. She presented her disability certificate in court as evidence and claimed that her efforts to pursue her rights were dismissed.
Upon her dismissal, she was allegedly told that she was the “weakest singer” in the team and that the company was too broke to pay her royalties.
Asige is urging the court to compel the defendants to pay her dues, arguing that her dedication and creativity deserve recognition. She emphasized the need to protect the rights of other creatives who may face similar challenges.