commenced illegal activities which include licensing and issuing Copyright Clearance
Licenses to Audio-Visual Vendors who are communicating to the public, reproducing,
publishing, offering for sale, rental or hire films without the authorization of the copyright
owners, pirated and without a security devise.
9. That the 2nd Respondent has never carried out an audit with an approved auditor by the 1st
Respondent since it obtained a license to carry on the roles of a Collecting Society since
2011.
10. That the 1st Respondent has the mandate to supervise the activities of the 2nd Respondent
with emphasis on principals of Transparency, Accountability and Good Governance
(TAG). The failure by the Executive Committee of a Collecting Society to cause the
auditing of accounts in accordance with the law, presupposes that the executive
committee has relinquished office and the 1st Respondent must convene a meeting to elect
a new Executive committee.
11. That the 2nd Respondent’s executive committee is mandated to cause estimates of the
income and expenditure to be prepared for the coming twelve months at least three
months before the end of its financial year and a copy of the estimates shall be sent to the
1st Respondent for an opinion before they are submitted to the general meeting. The 2nd
Respondent has failed to deliver on this put continues to operate as a Collecting Society
being favoured by the 1st Respondent.
12. That the applicants are dismayed by the fact that the 2nd Respondent as a Collecting
Society meant to carry on the role of collecting and distribution of royalties does not have
approved licensing tariffs by the 1st Respondent which should be the “Guiding Bible” for
any society with such a responsibility. This situation has been brought to the knowledge
of the 1st Respondent through the various complaints lodged against the 2 nd Respondent,
however there has never been any effort to clear or rectify this situation by the 1 st
Respondent.
13. That it’s a requirement of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 and the
Regulations thereunder that a security device is affixed by the 2nd Respondent to each and
every audio visual recording which is to be distributed or otherwise exposed to the public
for sale, hire or rental, within Uganda upon verification that the audio visual recording has
been produced or published in Uganda or imported in Uganda without infringing any
Copyright granted by the Act. The 2nd Respondent has failed to do the mandated
obligations but rather issued Copyright Clearance Licenses to Vendors who are selling
pirated movies and without a security device affixed onto them.
4