Hence the submission that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant.
In view of the issues framed for determination, I do not think that learned counsel was
justified to raise this objection. I am saying so because the issues as framed would take
care of it.
Be that as it may, it is trite that whether a plaint discloses a cause of action must be
determined upon perusal of the plaint alone, together with anything attached so as to form
part of it, and upon the assumption that any express or implied allegations of fact in it are
true.
See: Jeraj Shariff vs Chotai Fancy Stores [1960] E.A 374 at p.375.
I have perused the plaint and its annextures. The plaintiff‟s cause of complaint is
introduced and well elucidated in paragraph 4 of his plaint. The long and short of it is
that he enjoyed a right, that is, a copyright in a musical composition, that the copyright
has been infringed, and that the defendant is liable for the infringement. This in my view
constitutes a reasonable cause of action. Whether or not the claim is genuine is a matter
for investigation in the context of issues framed for determination.
For this reason alone I find no merit in the objection and I disallow it.
I now turn to the plaintiff‟s contention that at the time of the said composition he was not
in the employment of the defendant and that no contract was entered into by the parties in
respect of the said composition.
PROOF
In law a fact is said to be proved when the court is satisfied as to its truth. The evidence
by which that result is produced is called the proof. The general rule is that the burden of
proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue or question in dispute.
When that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what he asserts is
true, he is said to shift the burden of proof: that is, his allegation is presumed to be true,
3