Simbisa brands infringed music copyrights

The High Court has ruled that Simbisa Brands Zimbabwe, operator of popular fast-food chains including Chicken Inn and Pizza Inn, violated music copyrights by playing songs without a valid licence from the Zimbabwe Music Rights Association (ZIMURA). However, the court dismissed ZIMURA's claim for nearly US$87,000 in damages, describing the figure as "ill-conceived."

Justice Jacob Mafusire delivered the judgment on September 10, 2025, in a case that tested the scope of Zimbabwe's Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act and involved a dispute between rival collecting societies ZIMURA and the Zimbabwe Council of Copyright Owners (Zimcoco).

"The first defendant violated the copyright in the musical works played at its outlets," Justice Mafusire said. "Such copyright had been assigned to the plaintiff, which had the exclusive right to exercise the rights of the copyright owner under the Act."

ZIMURA had sued Simbisa Brands for royalties covering the period November 2023 to October 2024, claiming the company used music by its members - including top Zimbabwean artists such as Alick Macheso, Jah Prayzah, Nutty O, Winky D, and the late Oliver Mtukudzi - without paying fees. The association also argued that foreign artists covered under the CISAC global agreement were affected. ZIMURA sought US$86,719, equivalent to its annual licence fees for Simbisa outlets, and a declaration that Zimcoco had no authority to licence music from ZIMURA's catalogue.

Simbisa countered that it had paid royalties to Zimcoco, a rival collecting society registered in 2019, and had been advised by the Ministry of Justice's Copyright Office that this was sufficient. Zimcoco claimed it was entitled to licence Simbisa legally.

Justice Mafusire rejected Zimcoco's claims, noting that registration as a collecting society does not confer blanket licensing authority. "The issue is not about being registered as a collecting society. It is about who has the copyright in the music played for public consumption," the judge wrote.

However, the court also rejected ZIMURA's damages claim, finding that the association had merely equated lost royalties to the value of its annual licence without demonstrating actual prejudice to its members. "The plaintiff's computation of the amount of its claim and the quantum thereto are ill-conceived," Justice Mafusire said. "Works of music by different artists cannot possibly have the same value… The quantum bears no relationship to the prejudice allegedly suffered."

The court ruled that Zimcoco cannot authorise anyone to play music protected by copyright. Simbisa Brands was absolved from the damages claim. Zimcoco was ordered to pay ZIMURA's legal costs, while Simbisa and ZIMURA will each bear their own costs.