The Plaintiff insists that she did not authorize Prof. Ssengendo to do the sculpture and there is
no evidence that he ever acquired a license from her.
Court agrees with the submissions of Counsel for the Defendant that Prof. Ssengendo created
the sculpture on the basis that the model design had been commissioned to belong to KCC
under S. 8 (1) (b) of the Copyright Act. And as Counsel rightly asserted, in cross
examination the Plaintiff agreed that it was not an agreed term of the contest that she would
translate the model into architectural form as a sculpture, although that was the purpose for
which the model was created.
It is therefore accepted that in those circumstances, it was open to KCC to commission any
sculptor or sculptress of their choice to translate and create the sculpture for Centenary Park.
Prof. Ssengendo was selected and was paid Shs. 20,000,000/- by Shell (U) Ltd for creating
the sculpture. Prof. Ssengendo did not need the permission of the Plaintiff to do the sculpture
or acquire a license from her for the purpose.
Court further observes that the design and the sculpture are two different works of art, albeit
one is based on the other. A drawing is one form of artistic expression just as a sculpture is
another form of artistic expression. The sculpture can be described as a derivative work of
art, derived from the drawing.
The sculpture was contractually commissioned by KCC and paid for by Shell (U) Ltd. The
copyright in the sculpture also belongs to KCC which also owns the Centenary Park where
the sculpture is on display.
It is on record that when the Plaintiff returned to Uganda in 1995, and discovered that the
plaque (commemorative inscription) on the sculpture indicated her as an assistant and Prof.
Ssengendo as the designer; she complained to Prof. Ssengendo who agreed to change the
plaque; and which he did by writing to Shell (U) Ltd and KCC. - Exhibit P4. The Prof.
indicated that the plaque and its inscriptions would be replaced to read as follows: “Designed
by sculptress Sylvia Nakitende; Executed by artists Ssengendo; Contractors IOTA
Consultants Consulting Engineers and Planners”.
It is the argument of the Plaintiff that Prof. Ssengendo accepted to have the changes made
since he appreciated the copyright legal implications.
Despite the Plaintiff’s arguments, it is significant that she brought no action against KCC or
Professor Ssengendo; possibly because she knew that no such action would have succeeded.
It clear that the Plaintiff was cognizant of the purpose of the drawing she made and to what
use it was to be put. And she rightly insisted that her role as designer of the drawing from
which the sculpture was derived be recognized and from her evidence, Prof. Ssengendo took
steps to have that done.
And as pointed out by Counsel for the Defendant and rightly so, proper inscription ought to
be placed on the plaque as indicated in Exhibit P4, crediting the Plaintiff for the design and