The defendant on the other hand denies the plaintiff’s claim stating that in the year 2011 it engaged the services of the Maad Limited which is an advertising company and third party to these proceedings to develop an advertising concept for it’s new product known as Agro Save with the third party developing the concept after advising it that the third party had lawfully purchased all the photographs used in the advertisement materials from an internet based website known Shutter Stock Inc and from the New Vision Printing and Publishing Company Limited and thus consequently the photograph which was used was lawfully acquired meaning that the plaintiff had no cause of action and therefore her suit should be dismissed with costs accordingly. During the course of the proceedings, the defendant did file a third party notice seeking to be indemnified by the third party against any liability brought against it by the plaintiff. When the third party came on board it filed a written statement of defence in which it denied any liability over the alleged infringements of the rights of the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff did not and had no copy right over the photographs used by it for those photographs which it used were legally obtained from other entities not the plaintiff and that in any case the person in the alleged photographs was not the plaintiff in any event and thus the plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed with the contempt it deserves. 3. Issues for Court’s determination: During the hearing of this matter both parties to this dispute called witnesses and tendered in several documents. They also did file a joint scheduling memorandum in which four agreed issues were identified and proposed for the consideration of this court in its effort to resolve the disputes between themselves. The issues are;