D1. The Plaintiff could not have anticipated the interview and questions could not have been prepared and the text of the answers prepared and in any case none was produced in evidence. As far as the submission that the works must pass the originality test is concerned, section 4 (3) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006 stipulates that the work is only original if it is the product of the independent efforts of the author. The caller tunes in controversy are not the product of the independent efforts of the Plaintiff. Similarly the Plaintiff did not reduce the interview into material form in anyway. In those circumstances the Plaintiff did not acquire a copyright as envisaged under section 4 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006. With regard to the case cited by the Plaintiff's Counsel of The Estate of Martin Luther King Jr. Inc versus CBS Inc, Counsel contended that the decision was based on the provisions of the Copyright Act 1909 of the United States and the Plaintiff's Counsel has not demonstrated whether the provisions of that law are similar to the Ugandan Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act. Secondly in that case the copyright which was granted concerned the texts of a written and prepared speech of Dr King making the case distinguishable from the current controversy. On the question of the alternative remedy of unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff is not entitled to seek a remedy in the alternative because at the scheduling conference there was no issue that was framed for the court's determination. The Defendants Counsel contends that the joint conferencing memorandum signed by both parties is binding and therefore the parties can only expect a decision of the court on the agreed issues as framed and not others. This is in accordance with Order 21 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Secondly the cause of action of unjust enrichment is pleaded in the amended plaint. The Plaintiff is not entitled to seek any alternative remedies in relation to the alleged unjust enrichment. Furthermore at the hearing no evidence was led by the Plaintiff to prove unjust enrichment. The evidence does not show any enrichment, what extent if any and how unjust it may have been. In any case the claim for unjust enrichment is not sustainable. The Plaintiff did not acquire any copyright in this suit caller tunes and does not permit copyright in the interview. Consequently the Defendant or the Third Party cannot be held to have unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of the Plaintiff in the absence of a legal right over the caller tunes. In the premises the Defendants Counsel maintains that the case of Nipun Norattam Bhattia vs. Crane Bank Ltd cited by the Plaintiff's Counsel supports the Defendants submission that the question of unjust enrichment does not arise in the circumstances of this case. In the case of Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna vs. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour [1943] AC 32, the ratio in the case is that it would be inequitable in the circumstances for the Defendant to keep the money obtained. Such an action is for money had and received. However in the circumstances of this case, the thirdparty is the one that recorded the caller tunes and made the necessary arrangements to reduce them into caller tunes. The Plaintiffs made no contribution at all. It would be equitable for the third-party who expended time and effort to keep the proceeds of the caller tunes. Furthermore Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 8