Finally I was referred by the Third Party to a quite from Halsbury's laws of England volume 14 (1) (2007) reissue in paragraphs 10 and 11 that was also supplied to the court by the thirdparty. Under the heading of restitution claims in paragraph 10, it is a written that it is generally accepted that there are four stages to any restitutionary claim namely: firstly the Defendant must have been enriched; secondly the enrichment must have been at the expense of the claimant; thirdly the enrichment must have been unjust; and fourthly consideration must be given to any applicable defences. Under paragraph 11 it is written that a restitutionary claim can only be brought where the Defendant has been enriched as a result of something which the claimant has done for him or given to him. The absence of enrichment is fatal to the existence of the claim. Enrichment may either be positive from the receipt of money or goods or negative to the saving of the necessary expenditure. I have duly considered the law, the facts and circumstances of this action as well as the submissions of Counsel on the issue of unjust enrichment. The first question that comes to mind was whether the use of the Plaintiff‟s voice in the ringtones was unjust or unfair. The Plaintiff made that the speech or talk in full view of the press and as demonstrated by exhibit TPD1, several persons projected the recording equipment at him when he was giving the answers and he was conscious that he was being recorded. He cannot purport to control how the recording was going to be used and therefore the use by the third-party and the Defendant cannot be held to be unjust. In the copyright cases reviewed above, publishers made money without the consent of the Plaintiff of recorded material from the Plaintiff and were held to be entitled to the copyright. Once it is the finding of this court that the third-party is the author and therefore enjoys copyright protection under section 5 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006, it cannot at the same time be held that the use of the material was unjustified. Secondly the Plaintiff does not indicate that the use of the material is injurious to his character if anything the submissions of his Counsel are that he used his skills in giving the answers. In other words the words that the Plaintiff used were acceptable to be given in public. It is my finding therefore that the use of the material was not unjustified and that is not the case of the Plaintiff. If anything the Plaintiff claims copyright to the works. In any case having intended his words to be published to members of the public; he no longer had any right to restrict the use of the materials when used in any lawful manner. Thirdly there was no consideration flowing from the Plaintiff to the Third Party or the journalists. Under those circumstances the doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case. Though I have considered the other submissions of the parties, it is unnecessary for me to go into them in light of the finding that the Plaintiffs action for copyright infringement is dismissed and in light of the holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not give the Plaintiff a cause of action against the Defendant and the third-party in the circumstances of this case. In the premises the Plaintiff's suit stands dismissed with costs. Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 31