Without prejudice on the question of interest the Defendant‘s Counsel prays that the court exercises its discretion against an award of interest in accordance with section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act. He further contends that the Defendant's actions were intended to protect the environment which is a cause intended to benefit all citizens. Secondly it is a cause that is consistent with article 39 of the constitution of the Republic of Uganda which entitles every citizen to a clean and healthy environment. In the premises of the Defendant's prayer is that the Plaintiffs action is dismissed with costs. In rejoinder, the Plaintiff's Counsel contends that section 45 (3) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act does not prescribe the basis for assessment of damages. It does not deal with damages but with injunctions. He contends that it is not usual that loss suffered due to infringement of copyright will be quantifiable in monetary terms so as to be claimed as special damages. Consequently Counsel reiterated submissions that the claim should be in general damages. As far as exemplary damages are concerned, the Defendant did not think that they needed to ask the Plaintiff for her consent though they knew that she was the copyright holder and therefore acted recklessly and in total disregard of her feeling or interests. Even after being served with a notice of intention to sue they acted dismissively of her claims. The Defendant has further gone on to insist that the Plaintiff has no copyright in the song even when DW1 testified that the Plaintiff did have copyright. The conduct amounted to aggravation for which the Plaintiff is entitled to punitive/aggravated damages. The second category for the award of general damages which is that the conduct of the Defendant was cynical disregard of the claimant‘s right and calculated to make profit which would exceed the damages likely to be awarded is applicable. The case of Acode versus Attorney General Miscellaneous Cause No. 1 of 2004 is irrelevant because at page 14 it is held that courts should be hesitant to award costs in matters which involve parties who are ignorant, poor or marginalised members of society. The Defendant is a world-class NGO liberally funded by both the local and international community as readily admitted by DW1. Judgment I have duly considered the pleadings of the Plaintiff and the Defendant as well as the agreed facts and documents together with the written submissions of Counsels and the applicable law. Pursuant to the procedural requirement to hold a mandatory scheduling conference in which the parties would inform the court on the points of agreement and disagreement, Counsels filed a joint scheduling memorandum agreeing to certain basic facts. Before making reference to the agreed facts and points of disagreement, the agreed facts and points of disagreement are arrived at under the provisions of Order 12 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It provides that the court shall hold a scheduling conference to sort out points of agreement and disagreement, the possibility of mediation, arbitration and any other form of settlement after closure of pleadings namely within seven days after the order on delivery of interrogatories and discoveries or where