Starting with the question of ownership, it has been proved and it is an agreed fact that the
Plaintiff is the composer and copyright owner of the composition "let's go green". I would further
rely on the provisions of section 57 of the Evidence Act which provides that:
"57. Facts admitted need not be proved.
No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties to the proceeding or their
agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by
any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they
are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings; except that the court may, in its
discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions."
The admission of the copyright ownership of the song "let's go green" was not only made
through a scheduling memorandum endorsed by Counsels for both parties but also by DW1 the
only witness the Plaintiff. The only variance in the testimony of DW1 is the testimony that there
is another artist involved in the song namely Jocelyn Keko. That testimony was sufficiently
answered by the Plaintiff when she testified that she paid that artist for the work she did and that
she is the sole owner of the composition "let's go green".
Under section 2 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006, the term "author" means
"the physical person who created or creates work protected under section 5 and includes the
person or authority commissioning work or employing a person making the work in the course of
employment." Under section 5 (1) (b) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, dramatic,
dramatic – musical and musical works are eligible for copyright. The Plaintiff's Counsel relied
on sections 9 and 10 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act to assert the economic and
moral rights of an author. As far as ownership rights are concerned, the owner of the protected
work shall have in relation to that work the exclusive right to do or authorise other persons to
publish, produce or reproduce the work or to distribute or make available to the public in the
originals or copies of the work through sale or other means of transfer of ownership. They
include the right to authorise broadcasting of the work and communicate the work by wire or
wireless means. Economic rights include the right to rent or sell the originals or copies of the
work. It is alleged that the Defendant's jingle in its campaign to protect Namanve forest reserve
infringed the Plaintiff‘s economic rights under section 9.
Secondly it is alleged that the Defendant's jingle in the advertisement and in its campaign to
protect Namanve forest reserve also infringe the Plaintiffs moral rights under section 10 of the
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. Moral rights include a right to claim authorship of the
work except where the work is included incidentally or accidentally in reporting current events
by means of media or other means. Secondly to have the owner's name or pseudonym mentioned
or acknowledged each time the work is used or whenever any of the economic rights under
section 9 are done in relation to the work except where it is not practical to do so and thirdly the
right to object or seek relief in connection with any distortion, mutilation alteration or