authorised the use of his pictures. Furthermore Counsel contended that even if
there was consent as alleged, the dealings between the Employees of the
Defendant are governed by the agreement signed between the Defendant and
the Allied Workers Union. When dealing with Employees the Defendant bargains
with Uganda Building Construction Civil Engineering Cement and Allied Workers
Union. No meetings were convened by the Union. The union was not involved in
dealing with the Plaintiff or other persons whose pictures were taken. None of
the union members were present according to the testimonies of the defence
witnesses and in effect this would have rendered the agreement reached null and
void. Furthermore Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff is not a
model and it is not part of his terms of reference to be involved in the
advertisements of the Defendant's products. The pictures were taken during the
course of the Plaintiff's employment. He was on duty going about his daily
routine. It was not a special day when he would have exempted himself from the
photo shoot. All the defence witnesses confirmed that the Plaintiff was on normal
duties and was not required to take special measures for the arrangement.
Consequently the Plaintiff's Counsel concludes that the Plaintiff could not have
excused himself from work he was carrying normally and it was not aware of what
was going on. In the premises there was no consent or authorisation to take and
use the Plaintiff's images and this violated his rights.
In reply on the issue of whether the Plaintiff’s Neighbouring rights were infringed?
The Defendant’s Counsel maintained that the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights
Act 2006 defines neighbouring rights as rights attached to the auxiliary role
played by performers and a performer includes actors, singers, musicians or other
persons who perform literary works.
The defence evidence through DW3 Mr Varun Sood is that a week prior to the
intended photo shoot, he met with all supervisors of the different departments
and briefed them on the upcoming events. He further called a staff meeting at the
Defendant's workshop where all Employees were in attendance including the
Plaintiff. At the meeting Employee were briefed about the upcoming events in
which DW3 explicitly explained that this was a voluntary activity and all
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
7