JOHANNESBURG — A high-stakes legal battle is brewing in the South African entertainment and corporate world, pitting controversial music executive and entrepreneur Nota Baloyi against the marketing juggernaut Nando’s. Baloyi has filed a lawsuit demanding R850,000 in damages from the fast-food chain, alleging the unauthorized and unlawful use of Brenda Fassie’s timeless anthem “Vuli Ndlela” in a widely circulated television and digital advertisement featuring rapper Kwesta.
The advert in question, which aired extensively in late 2025, featured Kwesta in a dynamic, choreographed sequence set in a vibrant township setting, with the unmistakable opening piano riff and chorus of Fassie’s 1997 kwaito classic serving as its energetic backbone. The campaign was praised for its cultural resonance and quickly went viral, lauded for blending contemporary hip-hop flair with a beloved musical heritage.
However, according to court papers served this week, Nota Baloyi claims the campaign trampled on legally protected intellectual property. He asserts that through a complex web of publishing rights and historical agreements, he holds a significant and enforceable interest in the copyright of “Vuli Ndlela.” The lawsuit alleges that Nando’s, its advertising agency, and all associated producers failed to secure the necessary synchronisation licence—a specific right required to pair a copyrighted song with visual media—before launching the campaign.
“This is a clear-cut case of corporate exploitation of black intellectual property,” Baloyi stated in a fiery press release. “Nando’s built a massively profitable campaign on the back of MaBrrr’s legacy without due process or compensation to the rightful rights holders. Their assumption that iconic African music is free for corporate plunder ends here. The R850,000 is for damages and owed royalties, but more importantly, it is about setting a precedent.”
The figure of R850,000 is broken down into alleged lost licensing fees, calculated usage royalties, and damages for what Baloyi’s legal team terms “flagrant infringement” and “unjust enrichment.”
Nando’s, renowned for its savvy and often legally tested marketing, is expected to mount a vigorous defence. While the company has not yet filed a formal response, industry insiders suggest their legal position will likely hinge on one of two arguments: either that they did, in fact, secure all necessary licences through standard industry channels (potentially from a different entity claiming to hold the rights), or that their use of the song constituted fair dealing—a legal exception for purposes such as parody or review, which Nando’s has successfully leveraged in past controversies.
The case throws a glaring spotlight on the often-murky world of music publishing rights in South Africa, especially for songs from the iconic kwaito era. Following Brenda Fassie’s tragic passing in 2004, the management of her rich catalogue has been the subject of previous disputes and complex succession issues. Determining who holds the definitive power to license her music for commercial use can be a labyrinthine process.
“This lawsuit is a grenade in the boardroom,” commented an intellectual property lawyer not involved in the case. “It questions the entire due diligence process of major ad agencies. Did they get the right signature from the right person? If Nota’s claims are substantiated, it exposes a significant failure. If not, it risks being a destabilising claim against standard industry practice.”
The music and advertising industries are watching closely. For artists and rights holders, a win for Baloyi could empower them to demand stricter compliance and higher fees. For brands and agencies, it raises the spectre of increased cost and legal risk when using classic South African music, potentially chilling a popular marketing tactic.
As the legal papers are exchanged, the viral advert—once a celebration of local culture—now sits at the centre of a contentious debate about legacy, ownership, and the price of a national treasure’s soundtrack.
About The Author
