19 The 1st Respondent has failed to carry out its statutory duties of controlling, managing, overseeing and regulating the 2nd Respondent as a Collecting Society under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 and the Regulations thereunder. The respondents opposed this application and the 1st respondent filed an affidavit in reply through an Assistant Registrar Copyright at Uganda registration services Bureau a one Ms Rukundo Sarah. The the 1st Respondent has admitted and acknowledges that it is aware of the mismanagement of the 2nd Respondent by stopping them from implementing their licensing programs after it had received a complaint from the one of the applicants. The 1st respondent conducted an audit into the affairs of the 2nd respondent and that the said report was yet to be concluded and the interim report was to bring together the different factions and participate in the reforms of the 2nd respondent. That the 1st respondent believes that it is in public interest to hear all sides and investigate all complaints and deploy tools including facilitating amicable resolution of differences among such factions such that resources and attention be paid to the needs of the members and the users of the products of the film industry. The 2nd respondent opposed the application and denied breach of Copyright and Neighbouring rights Act and contended through the different affidavits that the organization supports its members in all ways possible to ensure that their objectives are achieved such as recommending them and availing them with information about copyrights and neighbouring rights law. That they have worked on all documentations required to ease the licensing, collection and distribution of royalties in addition to engaging stakeholders to support the licensing process. That the organization being in its infancy stage and one of the pioneer audio visual collective management organisations in Africa has faced a number of challenges, most of which are external yet have direct impact on the efficiency of the organization. That like any growing organization, they cannot have all systems and structures at the same time and that the organization has made strides in establishing the major structures and complying with the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act and Regulations made thereunder. ISSUES 1. Whether the Applicants have a valid cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Respondent. 2. Whether the 1st Respondent neglected its statutory obligation as a Registrar of copy right. 6