A Johannesburg court stopped Ambitiouz raising ownership disputes against Blaq Diamond with DSPs. The order only covers songs authored from 15 June 2022

On 12 June 2023 a judge in Johannesburg ordered Ambitiouz Entertainment to stop raising copyright and ownership disputes against Blaq Diamond’s music with streaming services, and to stop trying to remove the duo’s YouTube channel. The order covers only works authored from 15 June 2022 onward. It is interim, pending a second stage no document obtained here shows has been decided, and it determines nothing about who owns the earlier catalogue. The label said the next morning that it accepted the ruling and would keep disputing the earlier works anyway, naming one of them.

What actually changed, and when

Ndumiso Siyabulela Mdletshe and Siphelele Mbongi Dunywa, who record as Blaq Diamond, signed three agreements with Ambitious Group (Pty) Ltd, trading as Ambitiouz Entertainment, on 10 January 2020: an Exclusive Management Agreement, a Publishing Agreement and an Artist Management Agreement.

The unwinding started with the label. On 7 January 2022 Ambitiouz purported to cancel the agreements, and the reason it recorded was outstanding performance funds owed to Blaq Diamond. A breach notice followed on 14 March 2022. Then, on 15 June 2022, Ambitiouz sent a termination notice which, on the judgment’s own reading, terminated the Publishing Agreement rather than the Artist Management Agreement. That slip is not a footnote: 15 June 2022 became the date the court wrote into its order a year later, and the line separating the works Ambitiouz may not dispute from those it says it still will.

In parallel the duo built their own infrastructure. They established their own label on or about 21 February 2022, and on 1 July 2022 signed an exclusive digital distribution agreement with Electromode, the Johannesburg distributor acquired by Ingrooves in 2021 and now inside Universal Music Group’s Virgin Music Group. Electromode is the pipe, not the owner. What an Electromode exclusive term binds an artist to appears in the Musa Keys judgment.

Three songs sit at the centre of the fight: “Qoma”, “Ilanga” (the judgment renders it “Llanga” in places) and “Fireworks”. Ambitiouz sent YouTube takedown notices against the duo’s channel. They went to court.

What the court order does, and does not, say

The application was struck off the urgent roll on 27 October 2022, heard on 13 March 2023, ruled on from the bench on 12 June 2023, with Acting Judge Wanless’s written judgment following on 23 June 2023 under case number 2022/035571. YouTube was cited as first respondent, Ambitious Group (Pty) Ltd as second. The operative order reads, verbatim:

“1. That pending final determination of Part B … any person or entity acting in concert with the Respondents, are hereby interdicted from removing and/or deleting the account of the Applicants’ Youtube channel; 2. That it be ordered that the Second Respondent be interdicted from raising any copyright/ownership dispute against the works of the Applicants with any other Digital Streaming Platform (“DSP”) inclusive of the First Respondent, Spotify, iTunes, Deezer, authored by the Applicants from 15 June 2022, pending final determination of Part B.”

A third paragraph ordered Ambitiouz to pay costs on a two-counsel scale. This is Part A of a two-part application, an interim interdict whose job is to freeze the position until Part B is decided. It does not hold that Blaq Diamond own their masters. It does not hold that Ambitiouz does not. It restrains one behaviour, the filing of ownership disputes and takedowns, over one slice of the catalogue. The court did note, prima facie, that Ambitiouz has not paid royalties to the applicants, which is not a finding after trial.

What Ambitiouz said the next morning

The label’s statement of 13 June 2023 did two things at once. It accepted the ruling, “Although the decision did not favour us, we wholeheartedly respect the ruling made by the esteemed judge,” while saying it would be “diligently exploring the available legal avenues to appeal the judgment.” Then it drew the court’s own line and stood on the other side of it: “Nevertheless, in line with the court judgement, Ambitious Entertainment will continue to raise copyright and ownership disputes against works authored by Blaq Diamond prior to 15 June 2022. This also includes the song Qoma.”

That is not defiance of the order. It is a correct reading of its limits by the party bound by it. The appeal route later closed: trade reporting on 29 September 2023 records the leave to appeal dismissed with costs, quoting the applicants’ attorney, Jade Louella: “Ambitiouz leave to appeal is dismissed with costs! Round 3 in the bag.”

What the DSP credits show

The “℗” line under a release records which company delivered the recording and claims the sound recording copyright in it. It is not a contract and not a court finding, but it is public and it moves when a relationship moves. Blaq Diamond’s catalogue is a legible timeline of this dispute.

From 2017 to 2021 the credit reads Ambitiouz Entertainment. Beginning with “Ilanga”, released 29 July 2022, a new name appears: Umuthi Othi Thi (Pty) Ltd, the duo’s own company. It carries through 2023 singles including “Ifoni” and “Izikweletu”, and onto the album “Zulu Romance”, released 29 February 2024. The credits also show the fight itself. Some 2023 releases still carry an Ambitiouz credit, and one single, “Ukuthi Uyazi”, carries a joint line: “℗ 2023 Umuthi/Ambitiouz Entertainment”. Two companies, one recording, no resolution.

From mid-2024 the credit changes again, reading:

ONE FIFTY EMPIRE / gamma.

By 2026 it reads “gamma. Africa”. Both are later arrangements whose terms no document obtained here explains, and nothing connects that imprint string to any similarly named distributor.

One more thing the credits show without explaining. “Qoma”, the song Ambitiouz named in its statement, no longer exists on Apple Music as the standalone 2022 single. It now appears only inside “Zulu Romance”. Why, this desk does not know.

What could not be established

The duo’s label is spelled two ways in two reliable places. The judgment calls it “Umuthu”; Apple Music’s credits render it “Umuthi Othi Thi (Pty) Ltd”. This record treats them as one entity because the context is identical, but the discrepancy is unresolved, and South Africa’s Companies and Intellectual Property Commission has no public search interface, so no incorporation document was checked.

“Fireworks”, one of the three disputed songs, was released on 2 September 2022 credited to “Inkanyamba Records / The T Effect”, neither Ambitiouz nor Umuthi. Why it carries a third party’s credit could not be established. Part B has not been reported as decided anywhere this desk could reach, so who owns the works made before 15 June 2022 remains open.

What this means for artists

An interim interdict buys breathing room, not ownership. Blaq Diamond got their channel protected and the disputes stopped on one slice of their catalogue. They did not get a ruling that the masters are theirs. If your lawyer wins Part A, tell your manager the takedowns have stopped, not that you have won.

The date on the paperwork is the asset. The most consequential fact here is that a termination notice named the wrong agreement, and that error fixed the boundary of the court’s protection at 15 June 2022. Read every notice your label sends, and keep the dated original.

A distribution deal does not settle a rights fight. The Electromode agreement gave Blaq Diamond a route to stores. It did not stop a former label filing ownership claims against the same recordings, because those are claims against the copyright, not the pipe.

Your phonogram credit is a free, public, dated evidence trail, and disputes live in it for years. Here it shows the handover, a joint credit where the parties could not agree, and a later change of partner. Screenshot yours when it changes.

How this was verified

The primary document is the judgment in Mdletshe and Another v Youtube Channel and Another, case number 2022/035571, [2023] ZAGPJHC 724, Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg, per Wanless AJ, 23 June 2023, read in full via a stable web archive snapshot. The site hosting it blocks automated access, so the checkable source on the deal sheet is a South African trade report of the same ruling dated 13 June 2023. Every fact attributed to the court was read from the judgment text. Ambitiouz’s statement was read from two South African reports of 13 June 2023, each carrying different portions of it. The leave-to-appeal dismissal comes from a trade report of 29 September 2023; the judgment behind it could not be retrieved. Two further outlets that covered the case block automated access and are not cited. Every phonogram credit was read directly from Apple Music’s catalogue data for Blaq Diamond, artist ID 870552337.

Quick answers

Did Blaq Diamond win ownership of their masters?

No. The June 2023 order is an interim interdict pending final determination of Part B. It restrains Ambitiouz Entertainment from raising copyright or ownership disputes with streaming services over works authored from 15 June 2022, and from removing the duo’s YouTube channel. It makes no finding on who owns anything.

What happens to the songs recorded before 15 June 2022?

They fall outside the order. Ambitiouz stated publicly on 13 June 2023 that it would keep raising copyright and ownership disputes against works authored before that date, naming “Qoma” specifically. No document obtained here resolves ownership of those recordings.

Who distributes Blaq Diamond?

Their exclusive digital distribution agreement with Electromode took effect on 1 July 2022, per the parties’ own court papers. From mid-2024 their catalogue credit names a different imprint alongside gamma., and by 2026 reads “gamma. Africa”. No amount was disclosed at any stage.