19 The 1st Respondent has failed to carry out its statutory duties of controlling, managing,
overseeing and regulating the 2nd Respondent as a Collecting Society under the Copyright
and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 and the Regulations thereunder.
The respondents opposed this application and the 1st respondent filed an affidavit in reply
through an Assistant Registrar Copyright at Uganda registration services Bureau a one Ms
Rukundo Sarah.
The the 1st Respondent has admitted and acknowledges that it is aware of the mismanagement
of the 2nd Respondent by stopping them from implementing their licensing programs after it
had received a complaint from the one of the applicants.
The 1st respondent conducted an audit into the affairs of the 2nd respondent and that the said
report was yet to be concluded and the interim report was to bring together the different
factions and participate in the reforms of the 2nd respondent.
That the 1st respondent believes that it is in public interest to hear all sides and investigate all
complaints and deploy tools including facilitating amicable resolution of differences among
such factions such that resources and attention be paid to the needs of the members and the
users of the products of the film industry.
The 2nd respondent opposed the application and denied breach of Copyright and
Neighbouring rights Act and contended through the different affidavits that the organization
supports its members in all ways possible to ensure that their objectives are achieved such as
recommending them and availing them with information about copyrights and neighbouring
rights law.
That they have worked on all documentations required to ease the licensing, collection and
distribution of royalties in addition to engaging stakeholders to support the licensing process.
That the organization being in its infancy stage and one of the pioneer audio visual collective
management organisations in Africa has faced a number of challenges, most of which are
external yet have direct impact on the efficiency of the organization.
That like any growing organization, they cannot have all systems and structures at the same
time and that the organization has made strides in establishing the major structures and
complying with the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act and Regulations made
thereunder.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Applicants have a valid cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Respondent.
2. Whether the 1st Respondent neglected its statutory obligation as a Registrar of copy right.
6