course of their employment. In other words the court should consider whether
photos of Employees taken in the course of their employment showing them at
work cannot be used by the Employer for purposes of advertisement without
consent or payment of consideration. The plaintiff should demonstrate that the
filming or photo was taken in a private moment such us when eating or resting.
Such a conclusion should be based on the terms of the contract. In the absence of
the terms of any contract excluding an Employer from publishing photos and
audio visual works of products including members of staff in a factory carrying out
their work, the Plaintiff has no case presented before the court. As far as the
rights to privacy is concerned, someone who works in a factory as contained in
exhibit P1 and P2 cannot claim a right to privacy. The factory is owned by the
Defendant and the Defendant can bring in people at any time to inspect the
factory thereby excluding the rights to privacy.
In the premises the Plaintiff has not proved his case against the Defendant. It is up
to the Defendant to consider the Plaintiff for any benefit on the basis of his
participation which matter is between the Employee and Employer. The Plaintiff
has not proved a right to claim any usage fees from the Defendant and his action
is accordingly dismissed. I am mindful of the fact that the Plaintiff as an Employee
was not fully advised about the law and in the premises considering the likely
expenditure and cost that he would be subjected to, and his status as an
Employee of the Defendant, as well as being a faithful Employee of the Defendant
of 18 years standing, the Plaintiff’s action stands dismissed with costs of one
seventh of the costs to be taxed.
Judgment delivered the 5th of September 2014 in open court
Christopher Madrama Izama
Judge
Judgment delivered in the presence of:
Doreen Nanvule Counsel for the Defendant
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
20