In defence of the suit, the Defendant denied that the Plaintiff has any claim against the Bank,
contending that when Shell Uganda commissioned a team headed by Dr.Ssengendo to
translate the model into the sculpture, the Plaintiff was at all material times aware of the
commissioning.
That when the sculpture was completed on 20th October, 1994, Shell Uganda Limited duly
paid the agreed commissioning fee of Shs. 20,000,000/- And that the Plaintiff authorized the
commissioning of the sculpture.
Later, Dr.Ssengendo clarified to the Editor of the New Vision the respective roles he and the
Plaintiff played in the commissioning of the sculpture. He also wrote to Shell as the
commissioning entity on 03rd December, 1996, indicating what the correct inscription on the
plaque on the sculpture should read.
It is the Defendant’s contention that under the provisions of S. 8(1) (b) of the Copyright and
Neighbouring Rights At, 2006, the copyright in respect of the sculpture vests in Shell Uganda
Limited which commissioned the sculpture and not in the Plaintiff or Dr.Ssengendo. And
accordingly that the Plaintiff has no cause of action for infringement of copyright and the suit
should be dismissed on that basis.
In addition that the suit is fatally flawed in law for the reason that, the sculpture is displayed
in a public park and accordingly its reproduction in visual or graphic form on the Uganda
Shs. 20,000/- currency note falls under the fair use of works defence under S. 15 (1) (g) of the
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act,2006.
The Defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit with costs.
The following were the agreed issues for determination:
1. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action
2. Whether the Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in respect of the sculpture on
public display at KCC Centenary Park; if so,
3. Whether or not the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright through its use of the
sculpture on the Uganda Shs. 20,000/- shilling note
4. What remedies are available to the Plaintiff, if any?
The issues will be dealt with in the order that they were set out.
Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action:
It has been established by decided cases that to determine whether a plaint discloses a cause
of action, “must be determined upon perusal of the plaint alone, together with anything