The ongoing Jerusalema ownership dispute reached a critical juncture on 9 May 2025, as the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria issued a ruling that adds further complexity to the legal battle surrounding the hit song.
With its meteoric rise from a viral dance sensation to a legal dispute over royalties and contracts, Jerusalema continues to be at the centre of contentious litigation between artist Nomcebo Zikode, production label Open Mic Productions, and digital distributor Africori SA (Pty) Ltd.
Since its debut in 2019, Jerusalema, performed by Zikode alongside Kgaogelo Moagi, better known as Master KG (pictured below), has inspired unprecedented global engagement. Viral dance challenges catapulted the track into worldwide recognition, cementing South Africa’s influence in the global music scene.
However, beneath its chart-topping success lies an ongoing battle over ownership rights, contractual obligations, and revenue sharing. The irony is unmistakable: a dispute previously settled through a court-ordered agreement has once again resurfaced, as the parties challenge the interpretation and enforceability of specific clauses within that agreement.
Contract enforcement
At the heart of this dispute is Zikode, real name Nomcebo Nothule Nkwanyana and her company, Emazulwini Productions, who have pursued legal action against Open Mic Productions and Africori SA (Pty) Ltd. The conflict stems from a settlement agreement made an order of court in December 2022, which sought to resolve previous contractual disputes. Yet, the latest High Court ruling has rekindled tensions, adding layers of complexity to the case.
Central to the court’s decision was the “Future Recordings” clause, which mandates Zikode and Open Mic Productions to enter into a joint venture for her upcoming albums. In delivering the judgment, Judge NG Moshoana remarked: “A declaratory relief is not there for a mere taking. It is inappropriate for one party to the agreement to seek an order effectively freeing it from the agreed obligations.”
Financial transparency and growing tensions
Beyond the joint venture clause, Zikode’s legal team also challenged Open Mic Productions’ accounting practices, arguing that insufficient financial records had been provided over several months. Open Mic refuted these claims, insisting that it had fully complied with financial disclosure obligations, further fueling the legal dispute.
Judge Moshoana highlighted that motion proceedings, the method used for filing this application, were not suitable for resolving such detailed contractual disputes. The court ultimately ruled that Zikode’s request for relief was overly ambitious, extending beyond the scope of the original settlement agreement. Furthermore, although Africori SA was named as a respondent, the applicants did not seek specific relief against them, adding further complexity to the case.
The dance challenges may be fading away, but Jerusalemaownership dispute carries far-reaching consequences for South African musicians, particularly regarding contractual agreements and intellectual property rights.
Zikode and Emazulwini, in a joint statement, vowed to fight on. “While we respect the role of the court, we cannot ignore the bigger picture: This case represents more than a contractual disagreement – It is about the right of the artist to be acknowledged and respected for their work…” their statement read in part.
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Clickhereto follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel
