The Plaintiff is represented by Counsels Nelson Walusimbi and Peter Alan Musoke of Messieurs
Walusimbi and Company Advocates while the Defendant is represented variously by Counsels
Peter Kabatsi assisted by Joseph Matsiko and Paul Kuteesa of Messieurs Kampala Associated
Advocates. The third-party is represented by Peter Kauma of Messieurs Kiwanuka and Karugire
Advocates
It is an admitted fact in the joint scheduling memorandum that the sound recordings contained in
the contested ring tones have the voice recordings of the Plaintiff.
Issues for trial:
1. Whether the Plaintiff has any copyright in the caller tunes, which are the subject of
the suit?
2. Whether or not the Defendant and or third-party infringed the Plaintiff's
copyright?
3. Whether the Plaintiff's speeches are protected works under the Copyright and
Neighbouring Rights Act 2006
4. What remedies are available to the parties?
There are few factual controversies and most of the controversies for trial relate to interpretation.
The facts are sufficiently considered in the written submissions of Counsel and would be
reviewed in the judgment itself.
As a matter of procedure, the Plaintiff's Counsel doubted whether the Defendant had taken out
Third Party proceedings even though the third-party was allowed to participate in the
proceedings. Third Party proceedings could be considered independently of the Plaintiff's suit
against the Defendant. Order 1 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that where the
Third Party has entered appearance pursuant to the Third Party notice, the Defendant giving the
notice may apply to the court by chamber summons for directions. The matter is between the
Defendant and the Third Party. Where the court is satisfied that there is the proper question to be
tried as to the liability of the third-party to make contribution or indemnity claim, in whole or in
part, it may order that the question of such liability as between the third-party and the Defendant
should be tried in such manner at or after the trial of the suit as the court may direct.
In considering whether to try the issues inclusive of those between the Third Party and the
Defendant all at once, it is my considered decision that the question of the liability, if any,
between the Defendant and third-party ought to be considered together. In the UK such
proceedings can be dealt with independently or together and this is also envisaged by Order 1
rule 18 of our Civil Procedure Rules if the court so deems fit to order at its discretion whether to
wait for the trial of the matter between the Plaintiff and the Defendant or involve the Third Party
in defence to the action against the Defendant. In the case of Stott v West Yorkshire Road Car
Co Ltd and another (Home Bakeries Ltd and another, third parties) [1971] 3 All ER 534
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~?+:
2