Former TV Anchor Sues Safaricom for Commercial Exploitation

Peter Oyier demands Sh69 million compensation for alleged unauthorized use of voice recordings

Former television and radio news anchor Peter Oyier has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against telecommunications giant Safaricom, seeking Sh69.3 million in damages for what he claims is the unauthorized commercial exploitation of his voice recordings.

The legal battle centers on Safaricom’s continued use of Oyier’s voice in its Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system for platinum clients—the company’s high-value customers who hear his voice when dialing USSD codes to access premium services.

Oyier’s lawsuit, filed in the Commercial Division of the High Court, alleges that Safaricom has been using his voice recordings for six years beyond the expiration of their original licensing agreements. The veteran broadcaster claims this unauthorized use has severely damaged his career prospects and locked him out of lucrative voiceover opportunities with competing brands.

“Over the six years of the defendant’s use of my voice-over works, the voice has become synonymous with the defendant’s brand, negating my ability to get other jobs from competing or other brands because the public now associates the voice with the defendant,” Oyier states in his court affidavit.

The dispute stems from licensing agreements Oyier entered into with Safaricom through MGM Studios, the telecom’s agent, between 2018 and 2022. These agreements covered five major projects, including Safaricom Platinum Audio, Neo Home, and the Line 400 Revamp.

According to the Model Release Agreement signed in November 2018, each license was valid for only two years, after which any continued use of the voice recordings required renegotiation. The original agreement also included a non-compete clause preventing Oyier from providing similar services to competing brands during the license period.

Oyier claims the various contracts expired between 2020 and 2022, yet Safaricom has continued using his voice recordings without renewal, consultation, or additional compensation.

The veteran broadcaster argues that Safaricom’s continued use of his voice has cost him not just immediate income but also his professional brand identity in the competitive voiceover industry. He describes being viewed as the “Safaricom voice,” making it difficult to secure work with other companies.

“My compensation by the defendant should not be a matter of back and forth… because the continuous use of my voice over works in the IVR continues to injure my brand and the ability to work for other entities, rendering me jobless and incomeless,” Oyier states in his court filing.

The Sh69.3 million claim is based on his professional rate card and includes damages for what legal experts term “conversion”—the unauthorized use of someone else’s intellectual property for commercial gain.

Safaricom has denied all allegations of copyright infringement and conversion. In a surprising defense strategy, the telecommunications company claims there was never a binding agreement between itself and Oyier directly.

“The defendant denies that it had a contract with the plaintiff on interactive voice response content(s) or at all,” Safaricom states in its defense filing, arguing that any agreements were with MGM Studios, not with Safaricom directly.

The company maintains there is “no privity of contract” between the two parties, effectively arguing that Oyier cannot claim payment or hold Safaricom liable since no direct contractual relationship existed.

Before resorting to litigation, Oyier claims he made multiple attempts to resolve the matter amicably. He reached out to Safaricom directly and through his legal representatives, seeking renegotiation of contracts and payment for continued use of his voice recordings.

“I continuously sought the defendant out to renegotiate the contract and agree on payment of dues when work is used, without success. I even wrote a letter through my advocate and emails urging the defendant to make arrangements for settlement of the matter without going through litigation, but the same is yet to be acted upon,” he says.

This case highlights broader issues in Kenya’s creative industry regarding intellectual property rights and fair compensation for voice artists and other creative professionals. The dispute comes amid growing awareness of copyright protection in the entertainment and advertising sectors.

The case also underscores the complex relationships between major corporations, creative agencies, and individual artists, particularly regarding the long-term commercial use of creative works.

The lawsuit is currently before the Commercial Division of the High Court, where both parties will present their evidence. The case could set an important precedent for how voice recordings and other creative works are licensed and protected in Kenya’s telecommunications and advertising industries.

For Oyier, the case represents more than just financial compensation—it’s about protecting the rights of creative professionals and ensuring fair payment for the commercial use of their talents.

The outcome of this high-profile case will be closely watched by other voice artists, creative professionals, and companies that rely on licensing creative content for their commercial operations.