High Court Rules Against Simbisa in Music Rights Battle

The High Court has ruled that Simbisa Brands Zimbabwe — operators of Chicken Inn, Pizza Inn and several other fast-food outlets — breached copyright law by playing music without a valid licence from the Zimbabwe Music Rights Association (ZIMURA). However, the company was spared from paying nearly US$87,000 in damages after the court found the amount claimed was unjustified.

Justice Jacob Mafusire handed down the decision on September 10, 2025, in a case that highlighted rivalry between two collecting societies, ZIMURA and the Zimbabwe Council of Copyright Owners (Zimcoco), while clarifying the reach of Zimbabwe’s Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act.

“The first defendant infringed the copyright in the musical works played at its outlets,” Justice Mafusire said, adding that ZIMURA held exclusive rights to license that material.

ZIMURA had taken Simbisa to court seeking royalties for the period between November 2023 and October 2024, arguing that the company had used songs from its members — including top local acts like Alick Macheso, Jah Prayzah, Nutty O, Winky D, and the late Oliver Mtukudzi — without paying. Through its global agreement with CISAC, ZIMURA also claimed foreign artists were affected.

The association demanded US$86,719, the equivalent of Simbisa’s annual licence fees, and sought a court order declaring that Zimcoco had no authority to license its members’ works.

In defence, Simbisa said it had already paid royalties to Zimcoco, which was registered in 2019, and believed this was sufficient based on guidance it had received from the Copyright Office under the Ministry of Justice. Zimcoco, meanwhile, argued that it was legally entitled to license music users such as Simbisa.

Justice Mafusire dismissed Zimcoco’s position, stating that registration as a collecting society does not automatically grant it authority over works it does not control.

“The matter is not about being registered as a collecting society. It is about who actually owns the rights to the music,” he wrote. “The second defendant cannot authorise anyone to play music that is protected by another’s copyright.”

The judge, however, rejected ZIMURA’s damages claim, ruling that the calculation was flawed. He noted that the organisation had equated the damages to its annual licence fees without proving actual loss suffered by musicians.

“The plaintiff’s computation of its claim is ill-conceived,” Justice Mafusire said. “Songs by different artists cannot all carry the same value, and the amount claimed bears no relation to the alleged prejudice.”

Ultimately, the court held that Simbisa had infringed copyright but was not liable for the US$87,000 sought by ZIMURA. Instead, Zimcoco was ordered to pay ZIMURA’s legal costs, while Simbisa and ZIMURA were directed to cover their own expenses.

ALSO READ : Harare Lawyer Loses Appeal in Botched Land Deal With Chinese Investor