Who owns what an AI tool generates is no longer a hypothetical question under Kenyan law. Kenya’s Copyright Tribunal answered a version of it directly, within the last few weeks, in a dispute over AI-assisted children’s stories, and the answer was more restrictive than many creators and businesses experimenting with generative tools would expect.

The Case That Settled the Basic Question

In Aryeh Movement Limited v. Cynthia Beldina Akoth Okello, COPTA/E001/2025, the Copyright Tribunal confronted a dispute that began as an ordinary registration disagreement. Cynthia Beldina Akoth had been contracted by Aryeh Movement Limited to produce a series of Bible Scripture Stories and used AI tools to help generate some of the content. When the working relationship broke down, Beldina discovered Aryeh had registered the works with the Kenya Copyright Board (KECOBO) under its own name rather than hers, and filed a complaint seeking revocation. KECOBO agreed and stripped Aryeh of its certificate; Aryeh then appealed to the Copyright Tribunal. In resolving the appeal, the Tribunal had to confront a question Kenya’s Copyright Act has never expressly addressed: can AI-generated content attract copyright protection, and if so, who owns it?

What the Tribunal Actually Held

The Tribunal held that authorship under Kenyan law remains exclusively human. It grounded this in the Copyright Act’s definition of an author as the person who first creates a work, and in section 22(3)(a)’s requirement that a work reflect sufficient human effort and originality to attract protection. AI, the Tribunal noted, is capable of producing content and creators remain free to use it, but AI itself lacks the legal personality required to qualify as an author. Critically, the Tribunal did not rule that AI-assisted work can never be protected; it held that AI-assisted work qualifies for copyright only where the human claiming authorship can clearly demonstrate substantial human contribution that gives the work its original character. In this particular case, neither Aryeh nor Beldina met that threshold, so the Tribunal declined to resolve who actually owned the underlying works, beyond confirming that AI itself could not be the answer.

A Second, Separate Holding on KECOBO’s Own Authority

The Tribunal also addressed something worth knowing on its own terms: it ruled that KECOBO had exceeded its statutory mandate by attempting to resolve the authorship and ownership dispute when it revoked Aryeh’s certificate. KECOBO’s role, the Tribunal held, is limited to maintaining the copyright register under section 5(g) of the Act and Regulation 4(7) of the Copyright Regulations, 2020; ownership disputes are a judicial function, not a registration function. This matters beyond the AI question. Any business relying on a KECOBO certificate of registration as settled proof of ownership should understand that KECOBO’s own view on ownership, including a revocation like the one in this case, is not the last word and can itself be challenged as outside the regulator’s jurisdiction.

What This Means for Using AI in Creative and Commercial Work

The practical takeaway for Kenyan businesses and creators is not that AI-assisted work is unprotectable, but that protection now turns on evidence. A business commissioning AI-assisted content, or a creator using AI tools as part of their own process, should keep a documented record of the human input involved: prompts, edits, revisions, and the specific creative decisions that shaped the final output, since that record is what would need to be produced if authorship or ownership is ever challenged. Contracts commissioning AI-assisted work should also say explicitly who owns the result and on what basis, rather than assuming a commissioning relationship automatically transfers copyright, since the Tribunal in this very case found the contractual documentation too thin to settle authorship even though an agreement existed.

A Reform Already in Motion

This gap in the Copyright Act is not going unnoticed. KECOBO is working with the Kenya Law Reform Commission and the Attorney General’s office, under a Presidential Directive on Streamlining the Copyright and Creative Sector, to overhaul the Act, and a separate Kenya Intellectual Property Bill currently before the National Assembly would in any event fold KECOBO into a single new Kenya Intellectual Property Authority. Neither development has yet produced express statutory language on AI-generated works, so the Aryeh Tribunal decision remains the operative guidance for now, and should be re-checked for any legislative update before being relied upon in future. Other jurisdictions have taken different approaches worth watching for comparison: the United Kingdom’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 already contains an express provision attributing authorship of a “computer-generated work” to the person who made the arrangements necessary for its creation, a statutory fix Kenya’s Act currently lacks entirely. Whether Kenya’s eventual reform follows that model, adopts a different threshold, or leaves the question to case law built up through decisions like Aryeh is one of the more consequential open questions in Kenyan copyright policy right now.

How We Can Help

Clay & Associates Advocates advises technology companies and creators on structuring AI-assisted content ownership and registration under Kenyan copyright law. Our piece on the Kenya Intellectual Property Authority Bill covers the wider institutional reform this area sits within. Contact our Intellectual Property practice to review AI usage policies, commissioning contracts, or a KECOBO registration dispute.

Sources: Copyright Act, Cap 130, section 22(3)(a); Copyright Regulations, 2020, Regulation 4(7); Aryeh Movement Limited v. Cynthia Beldina Akoth Okello, COPTA/E001/2025 (Copyright Tribunal); The East African, Kenya Tribunal Rules AI Works Cannot Be Copyrighted; CM Advocates, The Copyright Tribunal Affirms the Human Authorship Requirement.

Frequently asked questions

Can AI-generated work be copyrighted in Kenya?
Not on its own. The Copyright Tribunal has held that authorship is exclusively human, but AI-assisted work can be protected where a human can demonstrate substantial creative contribution that gives the work its original character.

What case established this in Kenya?
Aryeh Movement Limited v. Cynthia Beldina Akoth Okello, COPTA/E001/2025, decided by the Copyright Tribunal.

Can KECOBO decide who owns a disputed copyright?
No. The Tribunal held that KECOBO’s role is limited to maintaining the copyright register, and that ownership disputes are a judicial function outside KECOBO’s mandate.

What should a business do to protect AI-assisted content?
Keep records of the specific human input, edits, and creative decisions involved, and use contracts that explicitly state who owns AI-assisted work and on what basis, rather than assuming a commissioning relationship settles ownership automatically.