Counsel for the plaintiff further referred to four tests laid down by Meggary MC in the case of Thomas Marshal (Exports) V Guinle [1979] 1 CH 222 which include that “…the owner of the information believes its release would be injurious to him or advantageous to his rivals or others; that the owner of the information must believe it to be confidential and not in the public domain; that the owner’s belief in these matters must be reasonable; and that the information must be judged in the light of the usages and practices of the particular trade or industry concerned…” The case for the defendant on the other hand is that there was no breach of confidence and therefore there was no unjust enrichment. Counsel for the defendant submitted that what the plaintiff had if at all was an idea or proposal which did not confer a right which could be breached. He referred to the case of Fraser and others V Thames Television Ltd [1983] WLR 2 P 917 for the proposition that for an idea to be the subject of confidence obligations, it must be original, clearly identifiable, of commercial value and sufficiently developed. Counsel liked this to the position under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act of Uganda (2006) in which section 6 therefore provides that ideas, concepts procedures or other things of similar nature are not protected. Counsel for the defendant submitted that there was nothing innovative about the plaintiff’s idea and there was evidence that his idea existed elsewhere too like the Google SMS Trader. Counsel for the defendant submitted that it was not true that the defendant when in receipt of the plaintiff’s proposal then approached Google and disclosed it to them in which case there was no breach of confidence. Counsel for the plaintiff further failed to prove technical similarities between his work and that of Google and so there was no nexus between the two. Furthermore there was no evidence that Google copied the plaintiff’s idea. I have perused the evidence on record and addressed my mind to the submission of both counsels for which I am grateful. I agree with Counsel for the plaintiff that the action for breach of confidence is not well developed in our jurisdiction. The nearest area is that of copyright. However as seen in the case of Saltman Engineering Co Ltd (supra) parties in business may exchange information which they deem to be confidential to protect their business positions and legitimately expect the other party to maintain that confidentiality.