use of her image as can be seen from the plaint thus making the citing and application of the Sikuuku case to be out of context. The defendant further went ahead to cite the Patents Act as one of the Laws governing property Rights in Uganda unfortunately the Patents Act was repealed by The Industrial Property Act No.3 of 2014 under section 109 (1) and (10) thereof. That notwithstanding from the testimony of Adris Kamuli (Dw3) stated it is clear that the third party obtained the plaintiffs’ image from the New Vision by virtue of a consent Exhibit D10 which has clear conditions among others stating that the picture was for single use only and restricted the purposes for which it was acquired to the request made by the third party for use of the materials as originally produced. Indeed when cross examined DW3 stated clearly that use of the image got by the third party was for agricultural purposes leaving the court to believe that if that was so then any subsequent usage for promotion of a bank account as is the case here would go at length to prove that the third party did not use the image in line with the purpose for which it was procured for using the plaintiffs’ image to promote the defendants’ Agro Save Account which is more in the a banking field than for agriculture tilted the use permanently towards another dimension which is that of commercial promotion. Indeed from the evidence on record it is clear that no effort was at all made by the defendant or the third party to find out who the plaintiff was before using her image for commercial purposes yet they all agree that the partly the plaintiff’s image was used in the commercial advert yet the defendant and third party had not sought her consent for as testified to ,they believed that it was the New Vision not the plaintiff whom they had to seek consent yet it is not in dispute that the New Vision ran the features bearing the plaintiffs’ image in its various newspaper whose