Peter Oyier, a familiar voice to many Kenyans from his years as a news anchor and voice artist, has found himself in an unexpected battle with telecom giant Safaricom.
The dispute centers around something deeply personal, his own voice. For years, his distinctive tones guided Safaricom customers through various services, but now that professional relationship has turned into a courtroom confrontation.
The heart of the matter lies in what happens when a contract ends but a voice keeps working. Oyier provided his vocal talents to Safaricom for four years, from 2018 to 2022, recording countless scripts for services like their premium audio offerings and customer care systems.
These recordings weren’t just simple reads they required precise timing, clear pronunciation, and the ability to convey complex information in both English and Swahili.
Each project came with its own two-year agreement, all arranged through MGM Studios, a production company that acted as the middleman in these transactions.
Now, Oyier claims something troubling happened after those contracts expired. His voice, carefully crafted and professionally recorded, continued playing across Safaricom’s systems as if the agreements were still in effect.
Every time a customer heard his familiar tones explaining a service or guiding them through a menu, it represented what he considers unauthorized use of his professional work.
The financial impact is substantial he’s seeking nearly 70 million shillings in compensation but the professional consequences cut even deeper.
The situation presents an unusual dilemma in the world of voice work. When a distinctive voice becomes strongly associated with a brand, it can actually limit that artist’s opportunities elsewhere.
Other companies might hesitate to hire a voice they associate so strongly with a competitor. Oyier argues this is exactly what’s happened to him, his vocal identity has become so tied to Safaricom that it’s affecting his ability to secure other work. Safaricom’s response introduces another layer to the story.
The company maintains that their agreements were strictly with MGM Studios, not directly with Oyier himself. In their view, they fulfilled their contractual obligations by paying the production company, and any further compensation discussions should happen between Oyier and his former agents.
This position raises questions about how large companies structure their relationships with creative professionals, and whether the common practice of working through intermediaries adequately protects artists’ rights.
Beyond the specifics of this case, the situation shines a light on the bigger challenges facing creative professionals in Kenya’s digital economy.
As businesses increasingly rely on recorded content whether voices, music, or images the systems for protecting and compensating the people behind that content haven’t always kept pace.
Many artists find themselves in similar positions, unsure how to assert their rights when their work continues to generate value long after their initial payment.
The legal process will ultimately determine whether Safaricom crossed any lines, but the case has already started important conversations.
It highlights how modern businesses benefit from creative work that often extends beyond the original agreement, and questions whether current contracting practices fairly account for this reality.
