whether the Defendant‘s advertisement jingle was excusable as something made in the public
interest.
Starting with the question of public interest the Defendants Counsel relied on the case of
Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment versus Attorney General and
another High Court Miscellaneous Cause No 0100 of 2004. The applicant, a nongovernmental organisation, filed an application under article 41 (1) and 15 (1) and (2) of the
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda for orders and declarations that the granting of a permit
to Kakira Sugar Works by the first respondent contravened article 39 and 237 of the Constitution
the Republic of Uganda and section 43 of the Land Act. Secondly they sought declarations that
the de-gazetting of the forest reserve was in violation of the applicant's right to a clean and
healthy environment. Several other remedies/declarations were sought but I do not need to refer
to them for purposes of considering the question of "public interest" raised by the Defendant‘s
Counsel. The specific holding that the Defendant‘s Counsel relied upon was that the forest
reserve in question was for the good of the people and was held in trust for the people of Uganda
and had to be protected for the common good of citizens. Secondly that the government had no
authority to lease out or otherwise alienate it. The court found that a permit was granted to
Messieurs Kakira Sugar Works Ltd amid protests from local communities which depended on
the reserve for their livelihood through Agro - forestry and, source of water, fuel and other forms
of sustainability. The grant of the permit was therefore in breach of the "public doctrine". I do
not clearly see how this authority is relevant to the Defendant‘s defence of "public interest". The
way I understand it is that the Defendant asserts that it used the Plaintiff‘s song "let's go green"
in the public interest efforts of conserving Namanve forest reserve.
It is not in dispute that efforts to conserve Namanve forest would be in the public interest as far
as environmental conservation is concerned. However whether or not it is in the public interest
has nothing to do with whether the Plaintiff's song "let's go green" could be used. The issue is
whether a person who acts in public interest can use copyrighted works in a public interest drive.
In the case of Hon. Paddy Ashdown versus the Telegraph Group Limited Case No
A3/2001/0213 cited as [2001] EWCA Civ 1142 being an appeal to the Supreme Court of
Judicature Court of Appeal (Civil Division) from the Queen's Bench Division/Chancery
Division, the issue concerned a suit brought against the publication of confidential information.
The court attempted to balance between two conflicting rights namely the right to copyright as
well as the right to freedom of expression. The court further considered restrictions on copyright
including the fair dealing exception for the purpose of reporting current events and which does
not infringe any copyright in the work. Particularly the court considered the fact that the defence
for breach of copyright can be mounted on the basis of "public interest". First of all the court
found that it was not a statutory defence but a common law defence. Specifically section 171 (3)
of the Copyright Act of the UK provides that nothing in that part of the Act affects any rule of
law preventing or restricting the enforcement of copyright, on grounds of public interest or
otherwise. The Plaintiff was granted an injunction restraining any further infringement of the