On the second test that the damage potential or actual that this alleged infringement will cause must be very serious to the Applicant the same affidavits are relied upon. Paragraph 10 of Mr. Wasula’s affidavit states that the Applicant has lost revenue that would have been earned from the destruction and sale of the Assignor’s musical works. I find that lost revenue to the applicant can cause serious damage to the Applicant and so this condition has also been met. As to the third condition that there must be clear evidence that the Defendants have in their possession incriminating ―things‖ or documents and that there is a real possibility that they may destroy such material before any application inter parties can be made, again the same affidavits are relied upon. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Mr. Sesanga’s affidavit has direct prima facie evidence of the Respondent/Defendant being in possession of incriminating evidence. He further states that the recording is done at the Respondents/Defendant’s residence at Kafeero zone at Mulago, Kampala. Furthermore paragraph 9 of the affidavit of Mr. Wasula states that the infringement also takes place at the Respondent/Defendant’s shop called FM Studio at the Old Taxi Park, Kampala. Paragraph 10 of the affidavit of Mr. Sserumunye states that musical works are recorded on UDT Cassette Tapes as opposed to SKC or BIASONIC Cassette Tapes. All three affidavits state that the recorded works by the Respondents/Defendants are unauthorised. Lastly paragraph 12 of the affidavit of Mr. Wasula states that he believes that if the court does not intervene to preserve the infringing/unauthorised musical works there is likelihood that the Respondent may dispose then thereby defeating the cause of justice and rendering any decree in the main suit nugatory. Based on the evidence in the aforesaid affidavits I find that the third condition has been met as well. Copyright infringement of musical works is a big threat to the budding musical industry in Uganda and so it needs the protection of the courts. The Anton Piller order appears to be a good tool to achieve this protection. It has been followed in Kenya and I find no good reason why it should not also be applied in Uganda. I accordingly grant the applicant the Anton Piller Order prayed for on conditions I am about to state. However, in granting the order I must highlight the caution given by Lord Denning MR. in the Anton Piller K.G. Case (Supra). An Anton Piller Order is not a search warrant which entitles a holder to force his way into the Defendants premises against his will. The Defendant by the Anton Piller Order is only enjoined