and Neighbouring Rights Act to the extent that translations, adaptations and other transformation of pre-existing works under subsection 1 may be copyrighted. I agree with the Plaintiff's Counsel to the extent that in either subsection 1 or subsection 2 of section 5 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, the common denominator is subsection 1 which deals with the kinds of works that may enjoy or are eligible for copyright protection. Subsection 2 thereof deals with the pre-existing works defined by subsection 1 of section 5 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006. The wording of section 5 (1) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act is crucial and I will quote: "(1) The following literary, scientific and artistic works are eligible for copyright –…" Before taking leave in order to look at the definition of an "author", it is necessary to emphasise section 4 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. Both Counsels emphasised section 4 (1) which provides that: "The author of any work specified in section 5 shall have the right of protection of the work, where the work is original and is reduced to material form in whatever method irrespective of quality of the work or the purpose for which it is created." Further critical matters may be highlighted from this subsection. These are "work", "originality of the work" and "created or creation of the work". The pertinent questions posed by the Defendant‟s Counsel and to be considered are whether the Plaintiff created the works and whether the Plaintiff reduced the work to material form and lastly whether the work is original? The question posed is to answer the question as to who the author of the works is. The questions flow from the ingredients prescribed by sections 4 and 5 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. Consequently it has to be considered whether the Plaintiff is the creator of the works. Secondly whether it is the Plaintiff who reduced the work into material form and lastly whether the work is an original work of the Plaintiff. It is the third-party‟s pleading and submission that the third-party created the works and is the author and therefore owner of the works. I have carefully considered the novel controversy generated by the facts of this case and the submissions of Counsel. The question of who is the author of the works has generated a unique controversy. It is not disputed that the works comprised of audio recordings which were rendered into ringtones by the third-party and thereafter sold to the Defendant who does not deny having offered it as ringtones to its transcribers. The word "author" in relation to sound recording is problematic and may be susceptible to various meanings if the provision of the law is not considered carefully. The definition of the word “author” under section 2 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act is not exhaustive and requires other provision for a definite meaning as we shall demonstrate. The question of who Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 18