intention from the reading of the news bites clearly show that they were intended for acknowledging accomplishments of the plaintiff and not for commercial purposes. In my humble view and my reading of the various legal provisions in regards to the instant matter, it is my understanding that every individual has a right to his /her personality which extends to the name of the individual and image and has a right to control the use of either. The defendant and third party apparently without any iota of authority took it upon themselves to use the plaintiff’s’ image for a commercial benefit without caring to find out as to who the plaintiff was. The motive of using the plaintiffs’ image in my view was clearly commercial aimed at promoting the defendant’s product called Agro Save Account which was geared towards soliciting for more customers. While it is debatable that the final product was not that of the plaintiff, it is evident that features and attributes of the plaintiff are visible in the final product with this fact being related to by the testimonies of the various witnesses who instantly related the advert to the plaintiff for since the plaintiff had featured in the newspapers before and then some aspects of hers featured in Exhibit D9 (3) obviously any ordinary person on the street would associate and conclude that it is the plaintiff on the adverts and no other person with only a person with special skills and training in the field of art would then be able to identify the minutest in difference with the final product between Exhibits D9 (3) and Exhibits D9 (1), P4 and P7. Resulting from this conclusion, I would find that indeed the defendant and third party did illegally infringed upon the image rights of the plaintiff and consequently, the first issue is answered in the affirmative even if the mere lack of a legal regime in our jurisdiction that