On the second test that the damage potential or actual that this alleged infringement will cause
must be very serious to the Applicant the same affidavits are relied upon. Paragraph 10 of Mr.
Wasula’s affidavit states that the Applicant has lost revenue that would have been earned from
the destruction and sale of the Assignor’s musical works. I find that lost revenue to the applicant
can cause serious damage to the Applicant and so this condition has also been met.
As to the third condition that there must be clear evidence that the Defendants have in their
possession incriminating ―things‖ or documents and that there is a real possibility that they may
destroy such material before any application inter parties can be made, again the same affidavits
are relied upon. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Mr. Sesanga’s affidavit has direct prima facie
evidence of the Respondent/Defendant being in possession of incriminating evidence. He further
states that the recording is done at the Respondents/Defendant’s residence at Kafeero zone at
Mulago, Kampala. Furthermore paragraph 9 of the affidavit of Mr. Wasula states that the
infringement also takes place at the Respondent/Defendant’s shop called FM Studio at the Old
Taxi Park, Kampala. Paragraph 10 of the affidavit of Mr. Sserumunye states that musical works
are recorded on UDT Cassette Tapes as opposed to SKC or BIASONIC Cassette Tapes. All three
affidavits state that the recorded works by the Respondents/Defendants are unauthorised. Lastly
paragraph 12 of the affidavit of Mr. Wasula states that he believes that if the court does not
intervene to preserve the infringing/unauthorised musical works there is likelihood that the
Respondent may dispose then thereby defeating the cause of justice and rendering any decree in
the main suit nugatory. Based on the evidence in the aforesaid affidavits I find that the third
condition has been met as well.
Copyright infringement of musical works is a big threat to the budding musical industry in
Uganda and so it needs the protection of the courts. The Anton Piller order appears to be a good
tool to achieve this protection. It has been followed in Kenya and I find no good reason why it
should not also be applied in Uganda. I accordingly grant the applicant the Anton Piller Order
prayed for on conditions I am about to state. However, in granting the order I must highlight the
caution given by Lord Denning MR. in the Anton Piller K.G. Case (Supra).
An Anton Piller Order is not a search warrant which entitles a holder to force his way into the
Defendants premises against his will. The Defendant by the Anton Piller Order is only enjoined