The usual result would be to dismiss the plaintiff‟s claim. However, this option does not
appear to me to be a just solution in a situation where court is mandated to administer law
and equity concurrently. For as long as neither party has exclusive rights in the music
comprised in the national anthem, there will be no end to litigation and yet it is a cardinal
principle in our judicial procedure that courts must, as much as possible, avoid
multiplicity of suits.
In the plaintiff‟s letter to H. E. the President in 1997, annexture „C‟ to the plaint, the
plaintiff suggested a once for all down payment of Shs.40m or a house in Kampala so
that he signs off his interest in the copyright.
His proposal herein is a whopping
£1,500,000 (approximately Shs.5.2 billion at the current exchange rate of Shs.3,500 per
Pound Sterling). Whereas it is true that the composition has stood the test of time and it
is a priceless source of pride for Uganda, the proposed figure is astronomical and
extortionist, to say the least. In any case it is based on the plaintiff‟s erroneous view that
he has exclusive rights over the anthem.
As the court observed in African Highland Produce Ltd vs Kisorio [2001] I E.A.1, it is
the duty of the plaintiff to take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss he has sustained
consequent upon the wrongful act in respect of which he sues, and he cannot claim as
damages any sum, which is due to his own neglect. The duty arises immediately a
plaintiff realizes that an interest of his has been injured by breach of a contract or tort,
and he is then bound to act as best he may, not only in his own interest but also the
interest of the defendant. In the instant case the plaintiff filed this suit 46 years after the
event. He has tried to justify the delay by citing the political turmoil at the time. He
went into exile in 1975 and came back in 1986. There is evidence that soon thereafter he
embarked on negotiations with the Government. This is apparent from the annextures to
the plaint but negotiations between parties with a view to reaching an out of court
settlement do not constitute a disability since this fact would not disable a party from
filing the suit: Allen Nsibirwa vs National Water & Sewerage Corporation HCCS
No.811/92 reproduced in [1995] VI KALR 4.
10