interpretation would mean that any spontaneous or impromptu recording done of a person and played back on radio or television would entitle such a person to sue and claim for any revenue earned by the radio or television station. With reference to the case of Sikuku Agaitano versus Uganda Baati HCCS No. 298 of 2012 this court held that the Plaintiff whose photograph had been used by the Defendant in a promotional magazine was not the author of the photo. The Third Party‟s Counsel further submitted that as far as sound recording is concerned, the author of the works is the producer according to a textbook Intellectual Property Law, second edition by Bentley and B. Sherman at page 118. Furthermore with reference to the case of Walter versus Lane (supra) cited by the Plaintiff's Counsel, the House of Lords held that the person who took notes of the speech delivered in public, transcribed them, and publishes in the newspaper a verbatim report of the speech is the author under the Copyright Act, 1842. The case of Walter versus Lane (supra) was approved in the Canadian case of Gould Estates versus Stoddart Publishing Company (supra). As far as the evidence is concerned the third-party was the creator of the works. In rejoinder the Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that the Defendant‟s Counsel departed from pleadings by submitting on an alleged fact that the Plaintiff is the then sitting mayor of Kampala city according to paragraph 5 (b) of the written statement of defence but in the submission is referred to as the former mayor. Secondly the allegation of an extempore interview is not backed by any pleadings. The Plaintiff's argument is that there were various recordings and in fact different ringtones. Failure by the Defendant to respect an order of the court ensured that the evidence on the ringtones was unavailable. The Defendant by its pleadings considered that the Plaintiffs works are speeches under paragraph 5 (a), (b), (d), and (e) of the WSD. The submission that it was based on an interview is a departure from the pleadings and is illegal. With regard to the submission on the first and second issues, the issues raised are resolved by the Defendants Counsel and not the issues endorsed by the court at the scheduling conference. It is unprecedented that a party raises and resolves issues differently from those ordered by the court on 3 February 2014 the court ordered how the issues are to be resolved. In rejoinder on whether the Plaintiff has any rights in the subject caller tunes/ringtones? The Plaintiff's Counsel submitted that the starting point should be an inquiry into the proprietorship of the Copyright in the speeches from which the ringtones are produced. The Plaintiff‟s Counsel further submitted that the Defendants Counsel extracted section 4 (1) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act in part only. But to complete the picture, the method, quality and purpose of creating the work is discounted in conferring authorship. Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 10