90 balancing exercise between the right to privacy and freedom of expression to determine infringement and compensation. I am inclined to accept this approach because it facilitates adjudication of the specific issue at hand . 95 In Sikuku v Uganda Baati HCCS No. 298 of 2012 , Justice Madrama as he then was adopted a liberal interpretation of article 27 of the Constitution. In that case, the plaintiff complained the defendant had used a picture taken of him while on factory premises of the defendant and sought compensation. Justice Madrama dismissed the claim on the basis there was implied consent. In discussing the right to privacy , the judge noted that 100 the plaintiff had to demonstrate that the filming was done in the privacy of his home . In this case, it was done in the factory premises owned by the defendant who could bring in people anytime thereby excluding the rights to privacy. Justice Madrama gave pertinent dictum on the right to privacy which he extended to pictures taken in the home of the claimant. 105 Therefore the plaintiff reasonably expected that an image of him captured while he was on a street would not appear on a billboard to advertise the defendant’s business. 110 Public space and the incidental use of a person’s image. Before I evaluate the evidence in the instant case, I want to review cases based on similar facts and how the courts in those cases dealt with the issue of right to privacy and photographs taken in a public space. 115 In the Weller case, the defendant published online photographs of a well known musician and his children while out shopping. The trial court found there was misuse of private information and breach of Data Protection Act. On appeal, the court held that the trial judge 4