facts that do not have to be proved in the trial. A fact which is not in controversy need not be
tried.
In this case it is alleged that the Plaintiff testified that the British Council commissioned her
work. In her testimony in cross examination she states that she is the sole owner of the musical
production "let's go green". Secondly she testified that the other artist is Keko Jocelyn and she
paid her for her role. Thirdly she testified that she was commissioned by the British Council in
2010. She was paid Uganda shillings 7,800,000/=. Counsel Benson Tusasirwe, Counsel for the
Plaintiff submitted that the witness as a lay person did not use the word "commissioned" in its
technical sense. I agree because the witness clearly testified that she is the owner of the song or
composition "let's go green". She did this both in her testimony in chief which is in writing as
well as during cross-examination. No details of the "commissioning" was elicited during crossexamination. In the re-examination she testified that she was paid by the British Council and
made it clear that they were just endorsing and they did not purchase rights. In her testimony in
chief she testified that: "so it was that in 2010, I produced this song "Let's Go Green", of which I
am the copyright holder." She has also been performing the song onstage and distributed it by
way of hard copies and soft copies. She performed the song as part of her public functions in
Uganda and on FM radio stations and television stations in Uganda who would broadcast it with
her consent and at the Global Climate Change Summit at Cancun, Mexico in 2010. She also
performed it live at another international function in Trinidad and Tobago. She exhibited a
recording of the song together with a recording of the Defendant‘s advertisement as exhibit P1.
On the other hand the testimony of DW1 Cissy Kagaba in chief is that they used a portion of the
audio sound recording "let's go green‖ to communicate to the public the impending giveaway of
the Namanve forest reserve. During additional oral examination in chief, additional to her
witness statement, she testified that the Plaintiff's song runs for about five seconds at the
beginning and five seconds at the end. She testified during cross-examination that she knew the
author of the song and knew that the Plaintiff was the author. She also knows another artist. She
further testified that they did not seek the Plaintiff‘s consent because they thought it was okay
not to.
The question of the ownership or copyright of the Plaintiff to the composition "let's go green"
has been proved on the balance of probabilities and the objection of the Defendants Counsel on
the ground that the song "let's go green" was commissioned by the British Council and therefore
its ownership rights is in the British Council or another artist and that the suit discloses no cause
of action against the Defendant cannot be sustained on the basis of the pleadings, the agreed
scheduling memorandum and the evidence. The objection is overruled with costs to abide the
final outcome of this suit. Consequently, I will deal with the issues as framed on the merits.
The first issue is whether the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright?