In reply the Defendant‟s Counsel relies on certain facts in evidence. Firstly the Plaintiff is and was at all material times a prominent politician and a national leader in Uganda. At the material time he was a former Mayor for Kampala city and had been nominated for appointment as a Cabinet Minister. Secondly the recording of the materials that was subsequently converted into ringtones was carried out by the employees of the third-party, at Parliament from an interview given to a group of assembled journalists and other persons on the occasion of the Plaintiffs vetting by the Parliament of Uganda. Thirdly the recording of the interview and the adaptation of the interview into the form of ring tones was carried out by the third-party. As far as the first issue is concerned the Defendant‟s Counsel contends that the Plaintiff's Counsel submitted on a different issue which is whether the Plaintiff has any rights in the subject caller tunes/ringtones? Whereas the issue agreed upon in court was whether the Plaintiff has any copyright in the caller tunes, which are the subject of this suit? As far as this issue is concerned it is the Defendant's submission that the Plaintiff does not have the copyright in the caller tunes, the subject matter of the suit. It is not in dispute and there is common ground that the caller tunes contain the Plaintiff's voice. However the Plaintiff was not the author thereof. The Defendants Counsel submitted that section 4 (1) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006 grants protection to the author of works specified in section 5 where such work is original and is reduced into material form. The list of works protected are provided for under section 5 and demonstrate that they include dramatic, dramatic – musical and musical works; audiovisual works and sound recording, including cinematographic works and any other works of a similar nature. They include works of drawing, painting, photography, typography, mosaic, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography and tapestry. He submitted that an interview or speech such as the one which is the subject matter of this suit is not one of the works that are eligible for copyright under the provisions of section 5 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. The list of works eligible for copyright demonstrates that an interview such as the one held by the Plaintiff, the subject matter of this suit is not eligible for copyright. Counsel submitted that legislature in its wisdom did not include speeches and interviews as works eligible for copyright. On that ground alone, the Defendants Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff‟s suit ought to be dismissed. In any event the Defendants Counsel submitted that even if the court were to find that the interview held by the Plaintiff is a work that is eligible for copyright, the Plaintiff is not the author of the works and therefore not vested with the Copyright thereof. It relies on section 2 of the Copyright and neighbouring rights act for the definition of the term "author" as the person who created or creates work protected under section 5 and includes: "the person or authority commissioning work or employing a person making the work in the course of employment." The totality of the evidence demonstrates that the Plaintiff is not the author of the audiovisual recording which led to the caller tunes. Similarly the Defendant is not the author of the caller Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 6