her constitutional right to privacy as most of her friends kept insinuating that she had received a lot of money from the defendant resulting from the use of her image on the bill boards, flyers and calendars with this fact creating clear and founded fear in her for ill-intentioned individuals could attempt to rob or steal from her. From the evidence on record, it is not denied by the defendant and third party that that the plaintiff’s image or some her features did in fact feature in the final defendant’s product as indeed Mr. Kimuli (Dw3) in his testimony described how the plaintiff’s image in Exhibit D9 (1) was manipulated to come up with the final product in Exhibit D9 (3). However, when the intended use for which the image was secured from the New Vision is taken into account, it would appear to me that while the newspaper publication was educate and inform that which was manipulated was for a different purpose being commercial. This means that the publication which eventually found its way onto the bill board was different from the original purpose for which it was published by the New Vision newspaper which need no special permission and therefore, since no permission was sought from the plaintiff for such commercial publication with the fact that the plaintiff subsequently got bombarded with calls from different people who saw the billboards as having her image, I am convinced that obviously the advert had a huge impact on the plaintiff who had to live in fear for there is evident that there grew a belief that she had reaped big from her image appearing on the billboards. Therefore, where an individual does not give any consent to the use of one’s image yet is confronted with the same on billboards in different parts of the country, there will arise grave concern resulting from such infringement of one’s privacy and therefore, I am convinced that arising from the action of the defendant and the third party the privacy of the plaintiff was indeed