Defendant. This is because the Plaintiff without a title to the copyright cannot sue. In the premises there was no infringement by the Defendant of the Plaintiff‘s rights to the song "let's go Green". In rejoinder on the first issue the Plaintiff‘s Counsel submitted that as far as the facts are concerned the Plaintiff's Counsel maintains that the Defendant made a false argument that the use of the portion of the Plaintiff‘s song was justified in public interest of serving Namanve Forest at the material time. He contends that there is no law allowing a person or organisation to help itself or himself/herself to intellectual property in the public interest. The clauses/law that has ever allowed invasion of private property in the public interest is where property is compulsorily acquired by government. Under that arrangement the law requires the government to give adequate and prior compensation (See Art 26 of the Constitution). When it comes to other persons in matters of copyright, the only permissible exception is "fair use" and not public interest. Whether the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff‘s copyright? The Plaintiff‘s Counsel submitted in rejoinder that the Defendant only pleaded in its written statement of defence that unsubstantial portion of the Plaintiffs work was used. Secondly in the joint scheduling memorandum filed in court on 21 October 2013 the agreed facts included the fact that the Plaintiff is the composer, producer and copyright holder of "let's go Green". Secondly the Plaintiff reduced the said production into a recorded form and has a business in it by way of audiovisual material. The Plaintiff also regularly performs the said product in public as well as advancing her environmental conservation agenda. Counsel further emphasised part "C" of the joint scheduling memorandum on the agreed disputed facts by the Plaintiff in which it is stated that unsubstantial portion of the Plaintiffs work was used (agreed fact in dispute). Secondly that it was used for teaching and educational purposes and therefore amounted to "fair use". Consequently the thrust of the Plaintiff's pleadings was the existence of a copyright which was admitted and secondly that the Defendant's contention that there was no infringement was based on the specific facts pleaded or at least asserted at the scheduling conference namely that only unsubstantial portion of the Plaintiff‘s work was used. Secondly that it was for teaching and educational purposes and amounted to "fair use". It was in the direction of the pleadings that the evidence of DW1 was directed. For that reason no issue was framed as to whether the Plaintiff was the copyright holder and the only question for trial was whether her copyright was infringed. All of a sudden the Defendant has come up with a competently different defence and issue. The departure from the pleadings to the extent of asserting that the song in question was a commissioned work and secondly was composed together with another person and offends the law. Specifically it offends Order 6 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Secondly general denials are not permissible and denial must be specific as required by Order 6 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Where a party makes a general denial, he cannot be allowed to adduce specific evidence nor can he take a position that is at odds with the thrust of his denial. The effect of the Defendant's submissions in choosing at this stage of final submissions to reply on argument is