the Defendant cannot be liable to the Plaintiff for unjust enrichment which has not been proved.
Counsel emphasised that the Plaintiff did not adduce evidence to substantiate the claim for unjust
enrichment and the claim did not in any way form part of the proceedings of the court.
Consequently the claim must fail and the first issue ought to be answered in the negative.
Counsel for the Third Party also submitted in defence of the action against the Defendant and
their right to do so is established by the common law in Stott versus West Yorkshire Road Car
Company Ltd and Another (Home Bakeries Ltd and Another, Third Parties) [1971] 3 all
ER 534 as well as Order 1 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules that the third-party and in their
defence state that the Defendants are not to blame at all.
The Third Party's Counsel as far as the facts are concerned maintained that it is the author of the
works. Secondly the Plaintiff enjoyed no copyright under the law because he is not the author of
the works. Thirdly the ringtones arose from an interview held at the precincts of Parliament after
the Plaintiff's vetting appearance. Furthermore Counsel relied on the case of Gould Estate
versus Stoddart Publishing Company (1996 8209 (ONSC) being a judgement of the Ontario
Supreme Court in Canada. In that case the Supreme Court considered whether the Plaintiff
enjoyed copyright in oral conversations which the publishing company reduced into writing and
published after the death of Gould. The court held that the conversation was not a literary work
because it was not expressed in a material form. Secondly a person's oral statements in his
speech, interview or conversation are not recognised in that form as literary creations and do not
attract copyright protection. The claim that every utterance made by the Plaintiff is a valuable
property right if upheld would have the courts inundated with claims from celebrities and public
figures who would argue that their expressions should be afforded extraordinary protection of
copyright. That result was never contemplated in the common law development of the copyright
law. Furthermore the responses of the Plaintiff was spontaneous and proceeded in a question and
answer format and there was not defined segregation, either by design or by implication of any
of the Plaintiffs expressions of his thoughts and opinions on the subject discussed which would
aid in identifying the purported copyrighted material. The Plaintiff had also willingly and freely
participated in the interview and was aware that his offhand comments could find their way into
the public domain. Consequently it was not the kind of discourse which the Copyright Act
intended to protect.
Furthermore with reference to the case of Taggard vs. WMAO Channel 5 Chicago, 57 U.S.P.Q.
2d 1083 (S.D. III.2000) the court held that an inmate had no copyright ownership of his speech
during an interview recorded and later broadcast by a television company. To the argument that
the responses of the inmate were a "performance" the court disregarded the submission and held
that his speech was only an idea and ideas are not protected by copyright law. Counsel further
relied on section 6 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006 for the same
proposition. In the premises the Third Party's Counsel contends that spoken words cannot be
protected by virtue of section 6 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006. Any other
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~?+:
9