plaintiff. It is the case for the defendant therefore that any communication between the
parties was causal and not official.
The defendant avers that it was under no obligation to notify the plaintiff about the
Google SMS Trader Product and that the said product was not tailored on the plaintiff’s
proposal as it was already in existence and therefore they were not in breach of any duty
of confidentiality.
At the pre-trial/scheduling conference the parties agreed to the following issues
1. Whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant?
2. Whether or not the launch of Google SMS trader was a breach of the
plaintiff’s rights?
3. What remedies are available to the parties?
Issue No. 1:
Whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action against the
defendant?
It is the case for the defendant that as a point of law the plaintiff company was not the
right party to file the suit.
Counsel for the defendant submitted that the Plaintiff company was incorporated in 2007,
but the idea of the SMS brokerage content provision system (hereinafter referred to as
“SMS brokerage system”) was developed between 2005 and 2006 by the Plaintiff’s
Managing Director Mr. Collins Musinguzi; therefore, the because the Plaintiff as a
company did not create the idea so the Plaintiff has no right to sue the defendant.
Counsel for the defendant submitted that idea of SMS brokerage system was developed
by the Plaintiff’s Managing Director before he was an employee, director, shareholder, or
agent of the Plaintiff company, because the company was not in existence at the time.
He further submitted that the only party that has intellectual property to be protected is
the Plaintiff’s Managing Director, not the Plaintiff as a company.
Counsel for the defendant submitted that the Plaintiff company failed to show that the
developer was its director, agent, or employee at the time the idea was developed.
The case for the plaintiff is that the Plaintiff’s proposal stated that the idea was both that
of the Plaintiff Company and its Managing Director.
Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that a company is distinct from its members.
However, this in no way bars a company from acquiring assets from its shareholders and
directors.