MBABANE– Amapiano superstars Kelvin Momo and Kabza de small’s clash over royalties has drawn attention to the Amapiano industry scene as the legal proceedings continues.
According to a South African news publication, the matter traces back to a 2020 recording arrangement linked to Piano Hub, the label associated with Kabza de Small. At the time, the collaboration was viewed as a major step in Kelvin Momo’s rise within the private school Amapiano sound, with the project later becoming one of the most celebrated releases in that sub-genre.
Years later, the success of that same body of work became the subject of court proceedings after Kelvin Momo alleged that certain terms of the agreement had not been fully honoured. According to court papers reported by South African media, the dispute focused on royalty payments, promotional obligations and the broader support that had allegedly formed part of the agreement.
Kelvin Momo’s case argued that the level of career development and commercial backing expected from the arrangement did not materialise in the way it had been anticipated. On that basis, he allegedly sought R1 million in damages, linking the claim to alleged unpaid royalties and losses said to have flowed from the agreement, stated the court-linked financial figures referenced in the reports showed that Kelvin Momo had previously received a royalty-related payment in 2021. However, the dispute persisted because he maintained that the payment did not fully settle what he believed remained due from the project’s earnings. Media reports placed the royalties in question at just over R197 000 000.
The source further stated that Kabza de Small, in his response, disputed that any further royalties remained payable. His legal filings reportedly maintained that the agreement had later come to an end through mutual consent, and that the payments already made had been correctly accounted for under the terms of the deal. He further called for a debasement of account, a legal review process meant to test the royalty statements and determine whether the calculations on either side were accurate. That accounting process became central to the case, as it could determine whether any balance was still outstanding or whether the financial obligations tied to the project had already been met.
By the time the dispute drew wider public attention, it had already spent nearly two years in litigation, underlining how complex music contracts and royalty structures can become once successful projects begin generating long-term revenue. Beyond the courtroom, the matter continued to raise broader questions about royalty transparency, label obligations and the importance of clear contractual terms in South Africa’s fast-growing Amapiano industry. While the final ruling remains pending, the case had already become a significant reference point in conversations around artist rights and financial accountability in the music business.
Leave a comment