60 a) Unlawful search of the person, home or other property or b) Unlawful entry by others 2) No person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of that person’s home, correspondence , communication and or other property. While the Constitution is loud and clear on privacy of the home, correspondence, 65 communication and property, it does not directly address the issue under adjudication , namely, the publication of a photograph of a claimant taken in a public space. In other words, photographs taken in a home would be deemed private and their publication without consent of the owner would be deemed an infringement of the right to privacy. This point was made by Justice Madrama in HCCS. No. 298 of 2012 Sikuku v Baati 70 Ltd where the plaintiff’s photographs on a billboard taken while on the employer’s premises was deemed not to be an infringement of the right to privacy. Counsel for the plaintiff rightly observed that article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights (ICCPR) is part of our legal regime as Uganda ratified it in 1995. 75 The article proclaims ‘No on shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence , nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation’. As the ICCPR is part of our legal system, it follows this court is bound to recognize the 80 right to privacy generally even when a person is in a public space. The fact that the plaintiff avers his image was published on a billboard without his consent establishes a cause of action within the broad framework of the ICCPR which prohibits arbitrary and unlawful interference with the privacy of any person. Whether the plaintiff’s right to privacy was infringed 85 It was counsel for the defendant’s contention that this article is mutatis mutandis with article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and therefore it is appropriate to consider the approach adopted in Weller and others v Associated Newspapers ltd [2016] 3 ALL.E.R 357 where the court first looks into whether claimant had a reasonable expectation for privacy . If so then the court conducts a 3