Counsel for the plaintiff further referred to four tests laid down by Meggary MC in the
case of Thomas Marshal (Exports) V Guinle [1979] 1 CH 222 which include that
“…the owner of the information believes its release would be injurious to
him or advantageous to his rivals or others; that the owner of the
information must believe it to be confidential and not in the public
domain; that the owner’s belief in these matters must be reasonable; and
that the information must be judged in the light of the usages and
practices of the particular trade or industry concerned…”
The case for the defendant on the other hand is that there was no breach of confidence
and therefore there was no unjust enrichment.
Counsel for the defendant submitted that what the plaintiff had if at all was an idea or
proposal which did not confer a right which could be breached. He referred to the case of
Fraser and others V Thames Television Ltd [1983] WLR 2 P 917 for the proposition
that for an idea to be the subject of confidence obligations, it must be original, clearly
identifiable, of commercial value and sufficiently developed. Counsel liked this to the
position under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act of Uganda (2006) in which
section 6 therefore provides that ideas, concepts procedures or other things of similar
nature are not protected.
Counsel for the defendant submitted that there was nothing innovative about the
plaintiff’s idea and there was evidence that his idea existed elsewhere too like the Google
SMS Trader.
Counsel for the defendant submitted that it was not true that the defendant when in
receipt of the plaintiff’s proposal then approached Google and disclosed it to them in
which case there was no breach of confidence.
Counsel for the plaintiff further failed to prove technical similarities between his work
and that of Google and so there was no nexus between the two. Furthermore there was no
evidence that Google copied the plaintiff’s idea.
I have perused the evidence on record and addressed my mind to the submission of both
counsels for which I am grateful.
I agree with Counsel for the plaintiff that the action for breach of confidence is not well
developed in our jurisdiction. The nearest area is that of copyright. However as seen in
the case of Saltman Engineering Co Ltd (supra) parties in business may exchange
information which they deem to be confidential to protect their business positions and
legitimately expect the other party to maintain that confidentiality.