Kakoma case. The Plaintiff's Counsel contended that in addition to general damages the Plaintiff also prayed for punitive/aggravated/exemplary damages. The Plaintiff relies on the decision in Rookes verses Barnard [1964] 1 All ER 367 and that the instant case qualifies for an award of exemplary damages. This is because the Defendant set out to benefit at the expense of and in disregard of the Plaintiffs rights. The Defendant's CEO admitted that she knew that the Plaintiff had copyright in the song but chose to overlook her rights. As the Plaintiff stated in her witness statement, even after this suit was commenced, the Defendant's offices remained unapologetic. It was therefore a proper case for an award of punitive/aggravated/exemplary damages which award will go a long way to protect the rights of artists in Uganda and help put talent and hard work where it deserves to be. Finally Counsel prayed that an award of Uganda shillings 150,000,000/= in both general and exemplary damages would be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Finally the Counsel prayed for costs of the suit. In reply the Defendant‘s Counsel reiterated submissions that the Plaintiff is not a legal owner as the works were commissioned by the British Council and she was not entitled to damages as a consequence. There was no evidence proving alleged infringement in accordance with section 46 (1) (a), (b), (c) and 46 (2) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act and the burden of proof under section 103 of the Evidence Act was not discharged. Without prejudice the Defendants Counsel submitted that the law is that damages if awarded shall be limited to the loss, if any, incurred by reason of infringement of the author's right under section 45 (3) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. On the criteria for the measure of damages, the Defendants Counsel submitted that the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act is silent. He suggested that the court should consider case law. The measure of damages is the depreciation caused by the infringement to the value of the copyright as a chose of action. The value of the Copyright would be determined depending on how the author exploits his or her works. Measure of damages can be accessed on sales or lost royalties. Because the Plaintiff did not produce any evidence on lost sales or royalties, she is not entitled to damages. On the question of suffering humiliation and embarrassment as the result of being set in a coalition course with the government officials and agencies including the Minister for the environment, the Plaintiff did not present the Minister or other government officials in court. Section 58 of the Evidence Act requires that all facts except the contents of documents should be proved by oral evidence. Secondly under section 59 of the Evidence Act, oral evidence must be direct and not hearsay. The absence of fans and government officials rendered the Plaintiff's testimony hearsay and inadmissible. Counsel relied on the case of Frank Music Corporation versus Metro Goldwin- Mayer IMC (1985) American Casebook Series page 1137 the trial court declined to award damages because it was unconvinced that the market value of the