In its defence, the defendant asserted that whereas it is alleged that members of UB40 had
assigned their rights to the PRS (UK), such assignment could not and did not stop the enjoyment
by the assignors of their personal rights neither did it operate as surrender, transfer or sale of the
UB40 individual member’s copyrights.
It was the defendant’s case that the UB40 as the proprietors of the copyrights reserved the
exclusive rights to contract and deal with their copyrights without prior authorization of anybody
including the PRS (UK).
The defendant further contended that it could not be taken to have infringed any copyright law as
it was duly authorized by the individual members of UB40 to organize the concert and in any
case the plaintiff could only be an agent of a disclosed principal and for that reason the
defendant was under no obligation to contract with the plaintiff when it could contract with
UB40.
The defendant further averred that the purpose of the execution of the alleged Deeds of
Assignment was not to strip the group of their inalienable performance rights but rather to create
a mechanism for the protection of the assignors’ rights from infringement by third parties.
At the scheduling conference the agreed facts were as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
There was a performance by the UB40 in February 2008 in Kampala.
The concert was held and attendance paid for upon entry.
There were no payments made to the plaintiff by the defendant for the UB40 concert.
The defendant paid UB40 for the performance.
The following issues were framed for determination:
1. Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant.
2. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to sue the defendant.
3. Whether the defendant is liable to pay royalties to the plaintiff.
Upon hearing evidence for both parties, both counsel filed written submissions. In their
submissions, the second issue was argued first. I will proceed to determine the issues in the order
that counsel argued them.
Issue 2:
Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to bring this action.
It was the evidence of PW1 that the plaintiff is a duly registered collecting society which
administers copyright for its members and those of foreign societies that it represents in Uganda.
2