Counsel further relies on the case of Walter vs. Lane (1900) AC 539 at pages 556 – 557 for the
definition of the author of a speech by Lord Brampton. It means the author of the language orally
uttered by the person. This suit was decided under the Copyright act 1842 which had no
requirement of originality that is currently intertwined with authorship under the current
Ugandan law. Furthermore the Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that it is now well settled that a
secretary who takes notes in shorthand does not thereby gain copyright in that shorthand or in its
transcript in the case of Donoghue vs. Allied Newspapers Ltd [1938] Chancery 106 (109 –
110). Park Farwell LJ held that the author is the person responsible for the works expression and
not the one responsible for the works reduction into tangible form.
As far as the originality test inherent under section 4 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights
Act 2006 of Uganda is concerned, it was held in the case of Walter versus Lane (supra) that the
work must express or reflect the author's personality, the internal turmoil of the author and
labour itself is insufficient. There must be something in the work reflecting the personality of the
author. Furthermore in University of London press Ltd versus University tutorial Ltd (1916)
to Chancery 61 at page 608 the court described the word "original" is not concerned with
inventive thought as copyright laws are not concerned with originality of ideas which is in the
realm of intellectual property laws but the expression of thought. The work must not be copied
from another work as it should be original to the author.
Finally the Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that from the evidence adduced at the trial, the ringtones
are reflective of the Plaintiff‟s and not the author's personality, his internal turmoil and they
comprised solely of the original speeches of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not imitate anyone
and he polished his skill of addressing the public over many years. The exhibits demonstrate the
Plaintiff's unique and confident style of addressing his audience, engaging them and even teasing
them without attracting offence, affectionately, uniquely but thoughtfully, communicating his
message and he passes the originality test. In the premises the Plaintiff is the author of the
ringtones and the copyright in the suit ringtones vests in him.
In the alternative and without prejudice the Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that the Plaintiffs claim
against the Defendant is for unjust enrichment. He relied on the case of Nipun Norattam Bhatia
vs. Crane Bank Ltd CACA 75/2006 wherein the court of appeal cited with approval the speech
of Lord Wright in Fibrosa Spolka vs. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd (1943) AC 32
at page 61 as authority for the principle that the equitable remedy against unjust enrichment
applies to prevent one from getting money off or some benefit derived from another which is
against the conscience that he should keep it as money obtained through undue advantage. The
unchallenged evidence adduced at the trial show not only unfairness of the Defendant but also
manifest arrogance. Consequently the Plaintiff's Counsel prayed that in the event that the court
does not rule in favour of the Plaintiff on the ground of having a copyright to the ringtones, the
court should find him vested with rights in the subject matter on the strength of the equitable
principle which bars the Defendant from unjustly enriching itself from the materials in question.
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~?+:
5