“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation; and (2) everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks” Relating the provisions of these international legal norms to the instant matter, it is plaintiff’s contention that the defendant and the third party interfered with her right to privacy when they placed her image on bill boards, flyers, calendars and brochures without her consent. The defendant and third party denies doing so for they opine that no interference with the privacy of the plaintiff was occasioned since the photograph in Exhibit D9(1) was not hers but belonged to the New Vision Newspaper which had the rights under the Copy Right Law to publish the photograph to the public and to rent or sell the original photograph or copies of the same with even the person who appeared eventually in the advert of the defendant being a different person other than the plaintiff as that person was a creation of the third party who transformed the image of the plaintiff Exhibit D9 (1) by creative works and replaced it with the one of the model in Exhibit D9(2) and came up with the final image in ED9(3). While this could be so , when the testimony of the plaintiff is taken as a whole, it is clear that while she at first was not knowledgeable about the billboards bearing her images until she was informed so by Pw4 and several of her friends in NAADS groups who were asking her as to how much she had been paid for the adverts, she eventually came into contact with the images and was struck by the fact that she was indeed in those images yet she never consented to her images as portrayed by the defendant’s adverts to be used for any purpose with the fact remaining that the defendant was trying to ride on her success as a farmer to popularize their product and attract farmers to itself for commercial purposes and thus by using her images the defendant invaded