As companies invest millions of shillings into influencer marketing, the rapid growth of the industry is leading to a rise in disputes over contracts, deliverables, and payments. One such disagreement made its way to court, where media personality Willis Raburu took East African Breweries Plc (EABL) to task for allegedly not compensating him for his contributions related to the Furaha City Festival.
The Milimani Commercial Magistrate’s Court has instructed EABL to deposit Sh10 million into a joint account managed by the lawyers representing all parties, pending the hearing of a commercial dispute initiated by Raburu.
Senior Principal Magistrate A. Nyoike issued the order while declining Raburu’s bid to suspend or revoke EABL’s operating licence over the alleged unpaid contractual fees. The court held that such an order amounted to a mandatory injunction, for which the applicant had not met the required legal threshold.
Raburu, through his company Steizon Limited, sued Game Changer Marketing Limited and EABL, claiming he was engaged to provide influencer marketing, branding, event coordination, and digital promotion services for the Furaha City Festival held in December 2024 at a fee of Sh10 million.
He argues the fees were not paid, yet he fully delivered the agreed-upon services, including producing more than 60 social media reels and over 100 static posts, coordinating influencers, and managing event logistics. He further says he submitted a post-event report and made repeated payment demands.
Game Changer denied engaging Raburu for the Furaha event, maintaining that its only role was in the earlier Chrome Wabebe Campus Caravan campaign, for which Raburu had already been paid after EABL approved the costs and issued a purchase order.
EABL also disputed liability, arguing that the Furaha event was the culmination of the Wabebe campaign rather than a separate engagement and that no second purchase order or executed contract existed for the claimed Sh10 million.
In his ruling, Magistrate Nyoike, however, said, “The conflicting evidence must be tested at the hearing.”
The court also dismissed EABL’s objection that the suit was barred by the doctrine of sub judice, finding that the company had failed to demonstrate that a related High Court case was still pending after Raburu showed it had been withdrawn.
However, despite declining to compel immediate payment of the disputed Sh10 million, the magistrate ordered EABL to deposit the amount as security in a joint account operated by the parties’ advocates pending the determination of the suit.
