The Plaintiff's Counsel further submitted that the mode of presentation includes one's expression
such as dressing and posture which was absent from the above suit concerning the prisoner
Taggard.
As far as the argument with regard to the commissioning of work as conferring copyright under
section 8 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act is concerned, the Plaintiff's Counsel
maintains that the provision is inapplicable. He contends that the provision applies where the
copyright work is created by a person in the employment of another.
As far as the argument that the third-party produced the works is concerned, during cross
examination the Plaintiff's Counsel challenged the Defendant's testimony that they recorded the
Plaintiff's speeches. The witness of the third-party Mr Kaheru could not remember or identify
from the screen any member of its staff at the recording. He further admitted that the third-party
is not a media house.
The Third Party could not be an author of the works and the best that they can claim is to be a
producer with neighbouring rights and not copyright. If anything they were mere recorders and
not even producers. A producer envisaged is one who lawfully put together works under
direction and in an arrangement with the author. The Plaintiff's speeches were not produced and
certainly not by the Defendants.
With regard to reliance by the third Defendant on the case of Swatch Gorry Management
Services versus Bloomberg, the authority is inapplicable on the ground that there was a
requirement for registration which is not a requirement in Uganda. Secondly the cases were
decided on the basis of the common law of copyright as opposed to statutory provisions. Section
14 of the Judicature Act disallows reference to common law where written law makes provision.
Furthermore both cases referred to were decided on the premise that holding otherwise would be
derogating from the constitutional exercise of free speech.
In the case of Sikuku Agaitano versus Uganda Baati (supra), the decision is not binding and
secondly it is distinguishable on the basis of the facts. The Plaintiff was an employee of the
Defendant which is not the case in this current suit. Secondly the recordings had been made in
the course of the Plaintiffs work. Thirdly the Plaintiff claimed performance and not copyright
and reference in that suit to copyright was obiter dictum.
With regard to the case of The Estate of Martin Luther king (supra) that the copyright existed
in the written text is not correct. What was copyrighted was the delivered/performed the speech.
The Plaintiff's Counsel further reiterated submissions that this refers to the exercise of one's oral
faculties and not to writings.
As far as the case of Walter versus Lane (1900) AC 539 is concerned, it is an outdated
authority with regard to what was known as the "reporters copyright". The case had been decided
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~?+:
12