neighbouring rights assumes that the Plaintiff is not the author of the works which is the subject of the copyright ownership independently of the Plaintiff's right. In other words neighbouring rights are auxiliary to the original works. Even if that decision is to be re-visited, the Plaintiff obviously did not agree to any performance or performing right as may enjoy the protection of a performer. According to Halsbury's laws of England fourth edition reissue volume 9 (2) and paragraph 11 thereof on the right in performances: "There is no copyright in the performance of a work as distinct from the work itself, but performers are protected by both civil and criminal law against the unauthorised recording, filming, broadcasting and inclusion in a cable programme service of their performances and have both property and non property rights in their performances." Even in the UK law quoted above, there has to be a work as distinct from the performance itself. In this case the Plaintiff in the sense of the answers to questions was actually the originator of the answers. However when it came to the recording, the Plaintiff was not the author thereof. Secondly the Plaintiff willingly gave his answers for the consumption of the public. I have additionally considered the provisions of section 11 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act which provides for co-authorship rights. It provides that: "Where work is created by more than one person and no particular part of the work is identified to have been made by each person, such that the work is indistinguishable, all the authors shall be co-owners of the economic rights and moral rights relating to that work and the co-owners shall have equal rights in that work." To be a joint owner however has to be consensual. According to Halsbury's laws of England (supra) paragraph 114 a work of joint ownership means "a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of one author is not distinct from that of the other author or authors". Furthermore there must be a common design and cooperation in the work of carrying out the design for there to be joint authorship. Furthermore: "A claimant to joint authorship in work must establish that he has made a significant and original contribution to the creation of the work and that he has done so pursuant to a common design." The analogy in the above provision is useful in the consideration of the Plaintiff's predicament. The Plaintiff in his own testimony indicated that he complained about the use of his voice. The Plaintiff had also filed a criminal complaint for copyright infringement. Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 27