Peter Oyier vs. Safaricom: Voice Recording Lawsuit

Safaricom’s call-center IVR system plays prerecorded voice prompts to guide customers. Oyier alleges he licensed his voice for Safaricom’s IVR and other projects, but Safaricom kept using those recordings beyond the agreed terms. According to court filings, Oyier signed multiple “Model Release” agreements (via MGM Studios) between 2018 and 2022. Each two-year licence covered specific projects (e.g. “Platinum” IVR, Neo Home menu, Line 400 revamp) and included a non-compete provision. Oyier asserts these licences expired between 2020 and 2022, yet Safaricom kept the recordings on its systems without renegotiation or extra fees. He claims he made repeated efforts to renegotiate and be paid for continued use, even writing letters and emails to Safaricom, but got no response.

Allegations and Safaricom’s Position

Oyier’s lawsuit (filed in the Nairobi Commercial Court) details several key allegations: unauthorized post-expiry use of his voice, commercial exploitation without consent, and resultant financial/emotional harm. He demands KSh69.3 million based on his professional rate card, including damages for “conversion” (unauthorized use of his intellectual property). He emphasizes that Safaricom’s ongoing use of his voice has “injured [his] brand and ability to work,” leaving him “jobless and incomeless”.

Safaricom’s official response disputes all material claims. The company denies any contract with Oyier for IVR or other voice work, insisting all deals were through MGM Studios, not with Oyier directly. In its defense filing, Safaricom states there is “no privity of contract” between it and Oyier, arguing that Oyier cannot claim fees from it since he never contracted with Safaricom. Safaricom also flatly denies copyright infringement or conversion. It contends that if any recordings exist, they were authorized under its agent’s licence and that Oyier must prove any direct agreement. The company’s stance is essentially that without a direct contractual license in writing, it owes Oyier nothing.

Safaricom’s Data/Privacy Controversies

While this case centers on voice/IP, it occurs amid broader scrutiny of Safaricom’s handling of customer data. In recent years Safaricom has faced legal challenges and public criticism over privacy. For example, in January 2023 the High Court certified a class-action lawsuit over a SIM-registration clause that allowed Safaricom to collect subscribers’ bank details. In mid-2025, former Attorney General Justin Muturi publicly accused Safaricom of aiding government surveillance and abductions by sharing customer data. Kenyan senators have also grilled Safaricom on data-sharing practices, questioning whether it gives government agencies unfettered access to subscriber information. These issues, while separate from the Oyier suit, highlight a pattern of privacy concerns surrounding Kenya’s largest telco. They suggest regulators and the public are sensitive to Safaricom’s use of personal information, which may indirectly color perceptions of the Oyier case.

Legal Analysis

The case implicates several Kenyan legal regimes:

• Data Protection (Act No. 24 of 2019): Under Kenya’s Data Protection Act, a data controller must have a lawful basis (e.g. the subject’s consent or a contract) to process personal data. Voice recordings of an identifiable individual can qualify as personal data or even sensitive biometric information. Oyier’s voice was initially licensed under contract, but if Safaricom used it beyond the agreed period, the question arises whether there was any valid consent or contractual basis for that continued processing. Section 30 of the Act requires consent “for one or more specified purposes”. If Safaricom’s licence ended and it had no new consent, its ongoing use could breach the Act. In short, Safaricom needed Oyier’s continued consent (or new licence) to lawfully keep using his voice data after the original contract.

• Copyright/Performers’ Rights: Kenyan law grants performers exclusive rights over their performances. The Copyright Act treats a recorded voice prompt as a “sound recording,” and the performer (Oyier) has rights to control its use. Section 30 of the Act gives a performer the right to authorize (or prevent) broadcasting or communicating their performance. Initially Oyier authorized Safaricom (via MGM) to use fixations of his performance. But once the licence expired, any further use without his permission could constitute infringement of his exclusive rights. Additionally, Section 30A provides for remuneration rights, meaning Oyier may be entitled to additional payment if recordings are broadcast/used beyond the original deal. Thus, if Safaricom indeed used the recordings post-expiry, copyright law likely favors Oyier on the infringement question.

• Contract Law: The dispute hinges on who held the licence. Oyier’s agreements were with MGM, Safaricom’s audio agency. If those agreements expressly included Safaricom’s right to use the recordings, Safaricom might claim it’s MGM’s issue. However, Safaricom admits no contract directly with Oyier. Under contract principles, without privity, Oyier cannot sue Safaricom for breach of a contract to which he wasn’t party. Instead, he relies on intellectual-property and quasi-contractual theories (like conversion) or alleges an implicit contract. This privity gap is Safaricom’s main defense. It argues Oyier can only sue MGM (or MGM owes Oyier). Lawyers note that if Safaricom authorized use via MGM, it effectively stepped into MGM’s shoes for the licence terms. If true, Safaricom might be bound by the licence’s expiration. The court will examine the exact wording of the “Model Release” deals and any assignment or agency clauses.

Comparative Precedents

There is no identical Kenyan case on record. However, global cases on unauthorized voice use offer insight. In Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc. (2024), two U.S. voice actors sued an AI firm for using their recorded voices without permission. A New York court held that copyright protects only the fixed recordings, not the abstract qualities of a voice. It nevertheless allowed the actors to pursue claims under rights of publicity (New York Civil Rights §§50–51) for unauthorized use of their voices in advertising, denying the AI company’s motion to dismiss. The court emphasized that while the actors’ recordings might be infringing if used beyond license, merely “copying” the style of a voice does not violate copyright. In Oyier’s case (non-AI context), the recordings themselves are clearly fixed works. Thus Kenyan courts can analogize: if Safaricom used the actual recordings beyond license, that’s copyright infringement. If it used only an imitation (unlikely here), law would be murkier. Overall, international law suggests Oyier’s strongest claims are under copyright and contract, with possible supplementary claims under any publicity-rights analogues.

Industry and Public Reactions

The dispute has sparked debate in Kenyan media and on social platforms. Legal commentators say the case highlights pitfalls in creative industries where big companies rely on short-term licences. Kenya Insights noted it “highlights broader issues… regarding IP rights and fair compensation for voice artists,” urging scrutiny of licence enforcement. Many Kenyans on X/Twitter (Kenya) rallied behind Oyier – hashtags like #PayPeterOyierNow trended – viewing him as fighting for creative rights against a corporate giant. Industry voices say the outcome could set important precedent for how voice talent is paid and protected in Kenya. No regulator has formally commented yet on this specific case, though data-privacy advocates see parallels with ongoing Safaricom privacy probes. In summary, public sentiment largely favors Oyier, framing it as a test of respect for creative IP; legal analysts emphasize the contract and copyright issues at stake.

Conclusion

Peter Oyier’s lawsuit against Safaricom centers on whether a major corporation can continue using a creative professional’s work after the agreed license ends. The evidence tables above and legal analysis suggest Oyier has plausible claims under Kenyan law: his voice recordings are protected, and using them without permission post-expiry can be infringement under the Copyright Act. The Data Protection Act may also favor him if his recordings are deemed personal data. Safaricom’s defense hinges on privity and the scope of those licences. The case will turn on the exact contract terms and whether Safaricom’s denials hold up. Its outcome will be closely watched by Kenya’s creative and tech sectors, as it could shape how voice talent and other creative content are licensed and respected in future.