2. The 1st Respondent is a statutory corporation established under the laws of Uganda and is the National Intellectual Property Office with power, mandate and authority to, inter alia, register, promote and safeguard Intellectual Property rights and the interests of consumers of its registration services as well as license, regulate, oversee the operations of the licensed Collecting Societies, establish an intelligent network monitoring system to monitor, compliance, collections, distributions and quality of service of Collecting Societies. 3. That the 2nd respondent as a Collecting Society is mandated by law, international treaties and conventions to protect, represent local and international producers of audio visual works by managing their copyright in films and other audio-visual works within this framework as well as to collects royalties for its members and signatories to the various copyright treaties as stated in the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 and the Regulations thereunder. 4. That several film makers and producers have on several occasions sought for information regarding the operations of the 2nd Respondent but to no avail. The 2nd Respondent has even refused to avail us with membership documentation to enable us join the institution and offer ourselves for positions of leadership with hope of creating a better administration regime. 5. That the members have sought information relating to but not limited to audited books of accounts, income and expenditures, executive committee, membership list, operations of the 2nd Respondent and the royalties collection and distribution reports but 2nd respondent did not make any substantive response on the said matters as raised by our legal representative. 6. That as members of our association made up of majorly film makers they have high expectations in the Collecting Society specifically relating to the collection and distribution of royalties to those that largely invest into production of movies. The 2nd Respondent a Collecting Society with similar mandate in Uganda has from the time of it’s licensing by the 1st Respondent deliberately failed and or neglected to effect any collection/distribution of royalties for its members yet works continue to be exploited world over including Television Stations, Hotels, Bars and YouTube. 7. That the 2nd Respondent has not commenced operations for two (2) consecutive years as it has failed to deliver on any of its principal objectives and mandate and therefore its Collecting Society License should have been cancelled by the 1st Respondent. 8. That on several occasions some of the applicants have carried on raids in search for copyright infringing movies and I have realised that the 2nd Respondent has since 3