Wakilii

Akech v Brookside Limited & 2 Others (Civil Suit 1065 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 69 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for copyright infringement
Decision
Plaintiff awarded general damages, permanent injunction granted restraining further infringement

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that the Plaintiff's demonstration video and documented marketing proposal were original works reduced to material form and therefore protectable under the Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006. The Defendants infringed copyright by sharing the Plaintiff's works with third parties without consent and by permitting another party to reproduce and imitate the Plaintiff's concepts. The Court awarded general damages of UGX 50,000,000, granted a permanent injunction, and awarded costs.

Outcome

Plaintiff awarded general damages, permanent injunction granted restraining further infringement

Facts

In December 2021, the Plaintiff approached the 1st Defendant with a marketing concept to promote the 1st Defendant's milk products by gathering women to discuss topics while consuming milk. She submitted demonstration videos and a documented proposal to the 2nd Defendant (the 1st Defendant's marketing manager). After the 2nd Defendant requested a budget, which the Plaintiff submitted in June 2022, the 2nd Defendant became evasive. The Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants had shared her works with the 3rd Defendant, who then engaged another life coach, Bahati Hilda Sabiti, to run a campaign using concepts substantially similar to the Plaintiff's proposal. The Defendants denied that the Plaintiff's works were original, claiming the 2nd Defendant had contributed to the concept and that no formal contract existed.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaint discloses a cause of action.
  2. Whether the Defendants infringed on the Plaintiff's copyright.
  3. What remedies are available to the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants jointly and severally.
  • General damages of UGX 50,000,000 awarded.
  • Interest at 15% per annum from the filing date until payment in full.
  • Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants or their agents or servants from sharing the Plaintiff's demonstration videos and documented proposal without the Plaintiff's consent.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Copyright Law — Cause of Action — Disclosure in Plaint
To succeed in a copyright infringement claim, the plaintiff must prove that copyright subsists in the work in issue, the plaintiff has standing to bring the claim, and the defendant committed an infringing act. Where the pleadings allege that works were reduced into material form protectable under copyright law and were used by third parties without consent, the plaint discloses a cause of action.
Copyright Law — Protectable Works — Material Form
Under section 4(1) of the Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006, the author of any work has a right of protection where the work is original and reduced to material form in whatever method, irrespective of the quality of the work or the purpose for which it is created. A written proposal and demonstration video constitute works reduced to material form and are eligible for copyright protection.
Copyright Law — Originality — Independent Creation
A work is original under section 4(3) of the Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006 if it is the product of the independent efforts of the author. Originality does not require that the work be entirely new or unprecedented, but that the plan, arrangement, and combination of materials have not been used before for the same purpose. A plaintiff is entitled to copyright even if hints were gathered from existing sources, provided the work demonstrates creativity and was independently created rather than copied.
Copyright Law — Infringement — Distribution Without Consent
Under section 46(1) of the Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006, infringement of copyright occurs where, without valid authorization, a person deals with any work or performance contrary to permitted free use, including by distributing in Uganda by way of sale, exhibiting to the public for commercial purposes, or by broadcast. Sharing a copyright work with third parties without the author's consent constitutes infringement.
Copyright Law — Substantial Copying — Test for Infringement
To ascertain copyright infringement, the court must determine whether there has been copying and whether the copying constitutes a substantial taking of the plaintiff's work. Substantial similarity exists where an ordinary observer, unless set out to detect disparities, would overlook them and regard the aesthetic appeal of the two works as the same. Infringement is established where the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work and the defendant's work is substantially similar in quality, even if not in quantity.
Copyright Law — Remedies — General Damages
Under section 48(1) of the Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006, a person who sustains damage because of copyright infringement may claim damages against the person responsible. The measure of quantifying damages depends on the facts of each case and may consider the amount the plaintiff would fairly have received for her works.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006 s.4
  • Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006 s.5
  • Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006 s.6
  • Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006 s.45
  • Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006 s.46
  • Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act 2006 s.48(1)

Cases cited (16)

  • Motor Garage and others Vs. Motorkov East Africa Law Reports 1971 E. A pg. 514
  • Read Vs. Brown 22, QBD pg. 31
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Narottam Bhatia and Hemantini Bhatia v Boutique Shazim Limited (SSCA No. 16 of 2009)
  • Sawkins versus Hyperion Records Ltd [2005] 3 ALLER 636
  • Byte Legion Technologies v MTN (Uganda) Limited (Civil Suit No. 359 of 2009)
  • Fetst Publication Inc. versus Rural Telephone Service 499 U.S. 340 (1997)
  • Emerson v Davies (1845) 3 Story 768
  • Stella Atal v Ann Abels Kirata (High Court Civil Suit No. 967 of 2004)
  • Francis Day and Hunter, Limited and Twentieth Century Fox Corporation Limited & others [1963] Ch.587 at p.623
  • Zeenode Limited v The Attorney General and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0347 of 2021)
  • Designer Guild V Russel Williams [2000] 1 WLR 2416
  • Katatumba v Anti-Corruption Coalition Uganda (Civil Suit No. 307 of 2011)
  • Chabot versus Davies & Another [1936] 3 ALLER Pg 221
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Wanume David Kitamirike (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2010)
  • Jivanji versus Sanyo Co. Ltd [2003] EA 98

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Akech v Brookside Limited & 2 Others (Civil Suit 1065 of 2022) [2024] UGCommC 69 (22 April 2024)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.