On this issue the Plaintiff's Counsel relies on section 45 (4) of the Copyright and
Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 for the claim of damages for infringement of the
Plaintiff's rights. Counsel further reiterates submissions that the Plaintiff's
pictures were used in the media but the Plaintiff was not given any consideration
for the use. The advertisements were for financial gain of the Defendant. Counsel
contends that any person who appears on television as a model or actor is the
generally expected to have benefited from the use of his image. In this case the
advertisement was of a commercial nature from which the Defendant benefited.
In the premises he prayed that the Plaintiff is awarded Uganda shillings
150,000,000/= as his fees. Secondly the Plaintiff be awarded general damages for
infringement of his rights; punitive damages for the unconstitutional manner in
which the privacy of the Plaintiff was infringed by the Defendant and costs of the
suit.
In reply the Defendant’s counsel submitted that the Plaintiff's rights were not
infringed at all and therefore he is not entitled to any remedy or relief. It is not in
dispute that the Plaintiff’s image was used but this was after obtaining consent
from him. The Plaintiff like all other Employees who appeared in the photo shoot
did not receive any consideration for the same. Consequently the Plaintiff is not
entitled to any remedies against the Defendant. Punitive damages as prayed for
by the Plaintiff are not awarded in all matters/cases before court. Such damages
are meant to punish the Defendants and none of the conditions set by the courts
warrants the award of punitive damages in the matter before the court.
Judgment
I have duly considered the controversy as disclosed in the pleadings of the parties,
the evidence adduced, the written submissions and applicable law. The first issue
was the subject of a preliminary objection and the ruling of the court was
delivered on 15 January 2014. As far as the plaint is concerned the decision of the
court is that the plaint discloses a cause of action in that the Plaintiff asserts a
right to his own images which were been used in certain advertisements by the
Defendant. Secondly it is asserted that the Plaintiff's permission was not sought
by the Defendant. I also ruled that the question of whether it was necessary to
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
10