I have carefully considered the defence as far as the written statement of defence is concerned and the submissions of the Defendant‘s Counsel. The submission of the Defendants Counsel is based on the testimony of PW1 in cross examination that she was commissioned by the British Council to produce the song "let's go green". On the basis of that contention it is submitted that the British Council is the one with the copyright and there was no evidence in writing of the assignment or transfer of the copyright to the Plaintiff. The Commissioner of the works is the copyright owner. On the basis of the submission that the copyright belongs to the Commissioner of the works, he contended that the Plaintiff‘s suit discloses no cause of action against the Defendant and that it ought to be dismissed on that basis. The Plaintiff's Counsel disagreed on the ground that this was a departure from the pleadings and secondly a departure from the scheduling memorandum. As far as the written statement of defence is concerned paragraph 5 thereof avers that the Plaintiffs claim is denied in total and the Defendant shall at the commencement of the trial raise a preliminary objection that the suit is misconceived and raises no cause of action. However not preliminary objection to the suit was raised at the commencement of the hearing. Apart from paragraph 6 of the written statement of defence the rest of the averments in the written statement of defence are denials. I will reproduce paragraph 6 of the defence which avers as follows: "The contents of paragraph 4 (a – h) of the plaint are denied in toto and the Plaintiff shall be put to strict proof thereof. a) In specific response to paragraph 4 (e) of the plaint, the Defendant shall aver that an unsubstantial portion of the Plaintiffs work was used, evidence of which shall be provided at the trial. b) Paragraphs 4 (f, g and h) are denied in toto the Plaintiff shall be put to strict proof thereof." Subsequently and in accordance with Order 12 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules the parties filed a joint scheduling memorandum agreeing that the Plaintiff is the composer, producer and copyright holder of the musical production/recording (song) entitled "let's go green". In terms of Order 15 rule 1 (2) there is no material proposition of fact or law constituting a defence to the effect that the Plaintiff is not the copyright owner of the song in question. Quite to the contrary it is an agreed fact in the writing and under the hand of the Defendant‘s Counsel and the Plaintiff's Counsel. Being an admitted fact an interesting proposition of law arises. Can the Plaintiff disprove his/her own facts which have been admitted through his or her own testimony? Facts which are admitted need not be proved under section 57 of the Evidence Act. In fact under Order 12 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules during the scheduling conference where that is a point of agreement on matters of fact, it is provided under Order 12 rule 1 (2) that orders shall immediately be made in accordance with rules 6 and 7 of Order 15. In other words agreements entered into during the scheduling conference have immediate ramifications. The agreements may influence the mode of trial and even how to deal with facts that may be in controversy and