This finding is supported by the clear provisions of the contract of reciprocal representation
already referred to above under issue number two and held to have conferred ownership of those
rights to PRS (UK). It is therefore the view of this court that PRS (UK) as the owner of the
copyrights is given protection under sections 3 and 81 of the Act. I have also already made a
finding under the second issue that PRS (UK) conferred the right to enforce those rights on the
plaintiff under the contract of reciprocal representation. I therefore find that the plaintiff enjoyed
a right by virtue of that contract.
ii. Whether the right has been violated.
As regards this sub-issue, PW2 testified that some members of the UB40 had assigned their
performing rights to PRS (UK). PW1 also stated during cross-examination that he was not aware
whether the group that performed in the UB40 concert in Kampala comprised of members who
signed the Deeds of Assignment. In view of this evidence, it was the duty of the plaintiff to
prove firstly; that members of the UB40 who performed in Kampala under the auspices of the
defendant were the ones who had assigned their right of performance to PRS (UK) which the
plaintiff is mandated to enforce in Uganda. Secondly; that the songs they performed were part of
the music work that were assigned. Short of that there would be no infringement of the copy
rights and as such no violation of the plaintiff’s rights under the contract.
I have thoroughly examined the evidence on record but failed to locate any that link members of
the UB40 who assigned their performance rights to the ones that performed at the UB40 concert
in Kampala. Neither did I find any credible evidence showing the particular songs that were
performed apart from a list of songs that was admitted in evidence as Exhibit P4 (i). Even then,
during cross-examination PW2 testified that much as some of the songs on that list were
composed by some members of the UB40, she could neither tell who the particular composers
were nor confirm that they were played at the UB40 concert in Kampala. The plaintiff appeared
to have based its case on the assumption that all members of the UB40 had assigned their copy
rights in their music work to PRS (UK). That assumption has been rebutted by the evidence of
PW1 and PW2 as indicated above.
In the circumstances, I find that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the rights it acquired under
the contract of reciprocal representation have been violated. For that reason, this court finds that
the 2nd key ingredient of a cause of action has not been proved. It is also unable to consider the
3rd key ingredient which presupposes that there is a violation. On the whole, I find that two very
important ingredients that constitute a cause of action are lacking. I therefore hold that the
plaintiff does not have any cause of action against the defendant. This answers the first issue in
the negative.
11