Starting with the question of ownership, it has been proved and it is an agreed fact that the Plaintiff is the composer and copyright owner of the composition "let's go green". I would further rely on the provisions of section 57 of the Evidence Act which provides that: "57. Facts admitted need not be proved. No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties to the proceeding or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings; except that the court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions." The admission of the copyright ownership of the song "let's go green" was not only made through a scheduling memorandum endorsed by Counsels for both parties but also by DW1 the only witness the Plaintiff. The only variance in the testimony of DW1 is the testimony that there is another artist involved in the song namely Jocelyn Keko. That testimony was sufficiently answered by the Plaintiff when she testified that she paid that artist for the work she did and that she is the sole owner of the composition "let's go green". Under section 2 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006, the term "author" means "the physical person who created or creates work protected under section 5 and includes the person or authority commissioning work or employing a person making the work in the course of employment." Under section 5 (1) (b) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, dramatic, dramatic – musical and musical works are eligible for copyright. The Plaintiff's Counsel relied on sections 9 and 10 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act to assert the economic and moral rights of an author. As far as ownership rights are concerned, the owner of the protected work shall have in relation to that work the exclusive right to do or authorise other persons to publish, produce or reproduce the work or to distribute or make available to the public in the originals or copies of the work through sale or other means of transfer of ownership. They include the right to authorise broadcasting of the work and communicate the work by wire or wireless means. Economic rights include the right to rent or sell the originals or copies of the work. It is alleged that the Defendant's jingle in its campaign to protect Namanve forest reserve infringed the Plaintiff‘s economic rights under section 9. Secondly it is alleged that the Defendant's jingle in the advertisement and in its campaign to protect Namanve forest reserve also infringe the Plaintiffs moral rights under section 10 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. Moral rights include a right to claim authorship of the work except where the work is included incidentally or accidentally in reporting current events by means of media or other means. Secondly to have the owner's name or pseudonym mentioned or acknowledged each time the work is used or whenever any of the economic rights under section 9 are done in relation to the work except where it is not practical to do so and thirdly the right to object or seek relief in connection with any distortion, mutilation alteration or