jingle put her on a coalition course with government officials and agencies who viewed her as a
traitor. The contention is that the Plaintiff did not prove her allegations because she did not
adduce witness evidence from government agencies or the Minister. I have duly considered the
Plaintiff‘s testimony on this point. She testified in her written testimony that she suffered much
embarrassment and humiliation in her dealings with various stakeholders including governmental
agencies and players who considered her a traitor for abandoning peaceful solutions to
environmental degradation. Particularly she testified that honourable Maria Mutagamba, the
Minister in charge of the environment who was close to her expressed her displeasure over the
involvement in the campaign to save Namanve Forest.
I have duly considered this testimony and I find nothing offensive in the advertisement jingle
because it was a call to the public to engage their Members of Parliament and take action against
the Namanve Forest giveaway. It may be true that the Plaintiff was considered one of the
campaigners against the intended giveaway of Namanve Forest. However there is insufficient
evidence that the Plaintiff suffered humiliation and embarrassment in the face of other
stakeholders including governmental agencies because of the song. It is possible that the
advertisement jingle was unpopular with the governmental officials involved in the matter but
that in itself is only a factor in the assessment of what remedies are available if any to the
Plaintiff.
Remedies
I have carefully considered the Plaintiff‘s prayers as reflected in the plaint and on the basis of
submissions of Counsel. As far as the plaint is concerned the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the
Defendant infringed upon her Copyright. Secondly she seeks general damages. Thirdly she prays
for punitive/aggravated/exemplary damages. Fourthly she prays for interest on the general
damages and the punitive/aggravated/exemplary damages at court rate from the date of
judgement until payment in full and finally she prays for costs of this suit.
As far as declarations are concerned, Order 2 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules allows the court
to make binding declarations of right whether any consequential relief is or could be claimed or
not. The Plaintiff having succeeded in proving her case in the agreed issues numbers one and two
agreed is entitled to the declarations sought in the plaint.
A declaration issues that the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff‘s Copyright in the song "Let's Go
Green".
As far as the claim for general damages is concerned, the provisions of the Copyright and
Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 envisages a claim for damages for copyright infringement. I will
refer to 2 provisions of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006. Firstly section 4 (1) of
the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act provides that the author of any work specified in
section 5 shall have the right of protection of the work, where the work is original and is reduced
to material form in whatever method irrespective of quality of the work or the purpose for which