- Matendechere claimed that the factory used part of the television interview in its Facebook advertisement without his consent.
- In a case of such nature, the judge said it incumbent upon Matendechere to ensure that the Court has access to the K24 Television interview or a recorded version.
Image: KENYA JUDICIARY
Aron Matendechere, famed for the Ntakufinya buzzword has suffered a setback after the High Court declined to order that he be compensated by the Ruiru Mabati factory for allegedly using his image without consent.
Matendechere sued the factory demanding compensation for the use of his image or likeness without his consent.
Ruiru Mabati Factory used his image to market their iron sheets on July 13, 2021.
He also separately sued the National Cereals and Produce Board over the same but the matter was still dismissed.
His claim before the court arose from an alleged interview captured by K24 TV where he was humorously warning one Charles Musyoka, an interviewee of the channel, on an electricity expose in Mukuru Kwa Njenga, a slum in Nairobi.
Matendechere claimed that the factory used part of the television interview in its Facebook advertisement without his consent.
He claimed the factory published on its Facebook page a post captioned: "Mambo ya mabati achia wenye wanajua, usifinywe, nunua Ruiru Mabati" and used his image to market their iron sheets.
He argued in court that the move by the factory subjected him to psychological torture because society, peers, associates, family, business partners and affiliates perceived him to have gained financially from the advertisements.
But Justice Anthony Mrima in dismissing the case said there is no evidence that he indeed featured in the television interview and if so, whether he uttered some words.
“There is still no evidence that the words which the petitioner is alleged to have uttered were actually the ones used in the advertisement by the respondent,” the court said.
The judge explained that if Matendechere had accorded the court the opportunity to view the television interview, either through a link or a recorded version, the court would have been placed in a position to settle all the issues which remain in limbo.
“As said, with such a lacuna, this court is unable to ascertain if any of the petitioner’s rights and fundamental freedoms were allegedly infringed,” he ruled.
The only thing Matendechere produced in court to prove his claim was the name of the respondent’s Facebook page and a photograph allegedly carrying his caricature developed from the television interview.
He also provided a photograph allegedly captured from the television interview with his image or likeness.
In a case of such nature, the judge said it incumbent upon Matendechere to ensure that the Court has access to the K24 Television interview or a recorded version.
“Without the initial interview where it is alleged that the petitioner featured and uttered some words which were later used by the respondent alongside the image and likeness of the petitioner, this court finds it a tall order to ascertain how the petitioner’s rights were infringed,” the judge said.
The judge emphasised that the photograph taken from the television interview is not proof of the interview.
“If anything, the photograph did not carry the words allegedly spoken by the petitioner which were in turn allegedly used by the respondent in its advertisement,” he said.