Grammy Award-winning artist Nomcebo Zikode has suffered another significant legal defeat in her protracted dispute with Open Mic Productions, her former record label. In a recent ruling, the Pretoria High Court dismissed her application for leave to appeal a previous judgment, and she has been ordered to cover the legal costs of the application.
While the exact final figure for legal fees will be determined through a “taxation of costs” process, Open Mic Productions has publicly claimed that Nomcebo Zikode now owes them approximately R1.5 million in legal costs incurred throughout this ongoing litigation. This substantial amount stems from the extensive legal battle centered around contractual obligations and royalty disputes, particularly those related to the global phenomenon, “Jerusalema.”
This development underscores the severe financial consequences that can arise from prolonged legal battles in the music industry, especially when large commercial successes like “Jerusalema” are involved.
The Court’s Rulings and the Accumulating Debt:
The current situation is the result of a series of court decisions:
- May 9, 2025: The Gauteng High Court delivered a significant judgment in favor of Open Mic Productions. This ruling addressed a case brought by Nomcebo Zikode, in which she sought to be released from a joint venture agreement and alleged a lack of financial transparency regarding royalties from various songs, including “Jerusalema.” The court found that Open Mic had fulfilled its contractual obligations by providing access to financial records and that Zikode was indeed bound by the 50/50 joint venture agreement she had entered into.
- July 24, 2025: The Pretoria High Court delivered the latest blow, dismissing Zikode’s application for leave to appeal the May 9th ruling. Judge Graham Nasious Moshoana determined that the proposed appeal lacked “reasonable prospects of success.”
- Legal Costs Order: Crucially, the court explicitly ordered Nomcebo Zikode and her company, Emazulwini Productions, to jointly but severally pay the legal costs of this specific application. The costs are to be determined “on a scale as between party and party to be settled or taxed at scale B.”
- “Jointly but severally” means Open Mic Productions can pursue either Nomcebo Zikode personally or her company, Emazulwini Productions, for the entire amount owed.
- “Party and party costs” refer to the reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by the winning party in court, typically covering a portion, but not all, of their actual legal expenses. These are calculated according to prescribed tariffs.
- “To be settled or taxed at scale B” indicates that the exact rand value will either be agreed upon by the legal teams or be formally assessed by a “Taxing Master” of the court. “Scale B” is a specific tariff guideline used for calculating High Court fees.
The court also reportedly criticized Zikode for initiating the case through “motion proceedings,” which are generally reserved for straightforward legal issues without factual disputes, when a “genuine dispute of fact” clearly existed.
The R1.5 Million Claim:
While the court’s order for costs is a standard procedure, the R1.5 million figure has emerged from statements made by Open Mic Productions. Lionel Jamela, the label’s head, was quoted in Sunday World (around May 12, 2025) asserting that Nomcebo Zikode owes the company approximately R1.5 million in legal fees. Jamela reportedly stated that Open Mic wants “all that money back” due to the costs incurred from her legal action.
This figure, while not yet a final, taxed amount, represents the significant financial claim Open Mic Productions is pursuing against the artist.
Beyond the Financials: Future Obligations
Adding to the financial implications, the May 9th ruling also imposed further artistic obligations on Nomcebo Zikode. The judgment mandated that she deliver two commercial albums to Open Mic Productions – one in 2026 and the second in 2027 – before she can legally terminate her contractual ties with the label.
As Nomcebo Zikode’s legal team reportedly studies the full judgment and considers further avenues for appeal, the “Jerusalema” saga continues to highlight the complex and often costly world of music industry contracts and intellectual property disputes.
