the Defendant cannot be liable to the Plaintiff for unjust enrichment which has not been proved. Counsel emphasised that the Plaintiff did not adduce evidence to substantiate the claim for unjust enrichment and the claim did not in any way form part of the proceedings of the court. Consequently the claim must fail and the first issue ought to be answered in the negative. Counsel for the Third Party also submitted in defence of the action against the Defendant and their right to do so is established by the common law in Stott versus West Yorkshire Road Car Company Ltd and Another (Home Bakeries Ltd and Another, Third Parties) [1971] 3 all ER 534 as well as Order 1 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules that the third-party and in their defence state that the Defendants are not to blame at all. The Third Party's Counsel as far as the facts are concerned maintained that it is the author of the works. Secondly the Plaintiff enjoyed no copyright under the law because he is not the author of the works. Thirdly the ringtones arose from an interview held at the precincts of Parliament after the Plaintiff's vetting appearance. Furthermore Counsel relied on the case of Gould Estate versus Stoddart Publishing Company (1996 8209 (ONSC) being a judgement of the Ontario Supreme Court in Canada. In that case the Supreme Court considered whether the Plaintiff enjoyed copyright in oral conversations which the publishing company reduced into writing and published after the death of Gould. The court held that the conversation was not a literary work because it was not expressed in a material form. Secondly a person's oral statements in his speech, interview or conversation are not recognised in that form as literary creations and do not attract copyright protection. The claim that every utterance made by the Plaintiff is a valuable property right if upheld would have the courts inundated with claims from celebrities and public figures who would argue that their expressions should be afforded extraordinary protection of copyright. That result was never contemplated in the common law development of the copyright law. Furthermore the responses of the Plaintiff was spontaneous and proceeded in a question and answer format and there was not defined segregation, either by design or by implication of any of the Plaintiffs expressions of his thoughts and opinions on the subject discussed which would aid in identifying the purported copyrighted material. The Plaintiff had also willingly and freely participated in the interview and was aware that his offhand comments could find their way into the public domain. Consequently it was not the kind of discourse which the Copyright Act intended to protect. Furthermore with reference to the case of Taggard vs. WMAO Channel 5 Chicago, 57 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1083 (S.D. III.2000) the court held that an inmate had no copyright ownership of his speech during an interview recorded and later broadcast by a television company. To the argument that the responses of the inmate were a "performance" the court disregarded the submission and held that his speech was only an idea and ideas are not protected by copyright law. Counsel further relied on section 6 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006 for the same proposition. In the premises the Third Party's Counsel contends that spoken words cannot be protected by virtue of section 6 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006. Any other Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 9