Wakilii

Kiggundu a.k.a Bruno K v Black Market Records Entertainment - SMC Limited & 3 Others (Civil Suit 1025 of 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 42 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for copyright infringement, unlawful commercial exploitation, and related reliefs, with counterclaim for recovery of funds advanced
Decision
Suit wholly succeeded in favour of the Plaintiff against the 4th Defendant. Counterclaim succeeded in part in favour of the 4th Defendant for recovery of UGX 2,785,000 to be deducted from royalties due to the Plaintiff.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

The High Court declared void an Exclusive Recording Artist Agreement executed between a musician and a suspended foreign company incapable of contracting, and held that the fourth defendant infringed the musician's copyright by making false copyright strikes on his YouTube channels and distributing his musical works without consent or remittance of royalties.

Outcome

Suit wholly succeeded in favour of the Plaintiff against the 4th Defendant. Counterclaim succeeded in part in favour of the 4th Defendant for recovery of UGX 2,785,000 to be deducted from royalties due to the Plaintiff.

Facts

The Plaintiff, a Ugandan musician, entered into a one-year Exclusive Recording Artist Agreement on 12 May 2020 with Black Market Records LLC, a California-based record label, through representatives who approached him in early 2020. The agreement provided that the company would finance his songs and share royalties. During the one-year period, the Plaintiff produced only one song, "Omuwala", in collaboration with another artist. After the agreement expired, the Plaintiff informed the defendants he would not renew. He proceeded to produce and upload several other songs to YouTube. The defendants subsequently made copyright infringement claims against his songs on YouTube, resulting in strikes and eventual banning of his channels. The defendants distributed his songs on digital platforms without his consent and without remitting royalties. The Plaintiff later discovered that Black Market Records LLC had been suspended by California authorities on 27 March 2013 for failure to pay taxes and file required statements, and had not been reinstated. He used this information to have his YouTube channels reinstated. The 4th Defendant counterclaimed for recovery of UGX 12,000,000 allegedly advanced to the Plaintiff for song production.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to determine the suit.
  2. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the 3rd Defendant.
  3. Whether the Exclusive Record Artist Agreement between the Plaintiff and Black Market Records LLC of 13 May 2020 is legally valid.
  4. Whether the Defendants unlawfully and fraudulently exploited the Plaintiff's works and infringed on his copyright.
  5. Whether the Counter-claimant is entitled to the recovery of UGX 12,000,000 from the Counter-defendant.
  6. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Declaration issued that the Exclusive Recording Artist Agreement of 12th May 2020 executed between the Plaintiff and Black Market Records LLC is null and void in its entirety.
  • Declaration issued that the 4th Defendant infringed on the Plaintiff's copyright in his musical works.
  • Permanent injunction issued restraining the 4th Defendant and its agents from directly or indirectly interfering with or infringing on the Plaintiff's copyright in his musical works and from passing off as the owner and/or licensee of the Plaintiff's musical works.
  • 4th Defendant ordered to deliver to the Plaintiff within 30 days a true and formal account of its involvement in the exploitation of his musical works and of the monetary value of the royalties received.
  • 4th Defendant shall remit to the Plaintiff all money rateably due to him following the account, less UGX 2,785,000 due from him pursuant to the counterclaim.
  • 4th Defendant to pay interest on the sum due at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
  • 4th Defendant to pay the Plaintiff UGX 100,000,000 in general damages.
  • 4th Defendant to pay interest on general damages at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
  • 4th Defendant to pay the Plaintiff UGX 30,000,000 in aggravated damages.
  • 4th Defendant to pay interest on aggravated damages at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • Two-thirds of the costs of the counterclaim awarded to the 4th Defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Capacity to Contract — Suspended Company — Effect on Contractual Validity
A company suspended by a tax authority for failure to pay taxes or file required statements is barred from conducting business activities including executing contracts, and any contract entered into during the suspension is voidable at the option of the other party.
Contract Law — Void Contracts — Privity of Contract — Enforcement of Choice of Court Clauses
An exclusive choice of court agreement in a contract can only be invoked by parties to that contract or persons privy to it, and persons who are not party to the contract cannot rely on such a clause to challenge the jurisdiction of a court.
Intellectual Property — Copyright — Musical Works — Definition and Protection
A musical work under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act consists of music exclusive of words intended to be sung or performed with the music, and protection extends to the lyrics and song itself, with song writing taken to be part of copyright; for a work to qualify for protection as a musical work, it must be an independent musical composition.
Intellectual Property — Copyright — Economic and Moral Rights — Nature and Scope
Economic rights to copyright entitle the author to publish, produce or reproduce the work, distribute it, perform it, broadcast it, communicate it to the public, make derivative works, commercially rent or sell copies, and do any act in relation to the work; moral rights entitle the author to claim authorship, have their name acknowledged, object to distortion or modification, and withdraw the work from circulation if it no longer reflects their convictions.
Intellectual Property — Copyright Infringement — Measure of Damages — Depreciation of Copyright Value
The normal measure of damages for copyright infringement is the amount by which the value of copyright as a chose in action has been depreciated, or the level of depreciation suffered due to the infringement, or the effect that the infringement had on the marketability of the works.
Contract Law — Void Contracts — Restitution — Recovery of Consideration
Where a contract becomes void after partial performance, the court has discretion under Section 54(2) of the Contracts Act to allow recovery of the whole or part of expenses incurred or advantages conferred, and in the absence of a valid agreement for sharing of royalties from a copyrighted work, equity requires only a refund of monies advanced for the production of the work and nothing more.
Tort Law — Aggravated Damages — Copyright Infringement — Callous and Devious Conduct
Aggravated damages may be awarded in copyright infringement cases where the defendant's conduct was disingenuous, callous and uncivil, including inducing a plaintiff into signing a void agreement, making false copyright claims using forged court documents, blocking the plaintiff's music on digital platforms in retaliation for speaking about the infringement, and failing to account for or remit royalties collected.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (22)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Desai v Warsama (1967) EA 351
  • Maersk Agency Uganda Ltd v Derrick Munywevu & Anor (HCMA No. 1177 of 2021)
  • Transtrac Ltd v Damco Logistics Uganda Ltd (HCMA No. 394 of 2010)
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (SCCA No. 2 of 2001)
  • Garfield Spence a.k.a. Konshens v Airtel Uganda Ltd & 2 Ors (HCCS No. 545 of 2015)
  • Tendolyamukama Jonathan v Mufuwa Stephen & Anor (HCCS No. 74 of 2021)
  • Geoffrey Brown v Ojijo Pascal (HCCS No. 228 of 2017)
  • Peacock Hill Association v Peacock Lagoon Construction Company [1972] 8 Cal.3d 369
  • Timberline, Inc. v Jaisinghani (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1361
  • Knight Frank Uganda Ltd v Broll Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 620 of 2021)
  • James Sawoabiri & Anor v Uganda (SC Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1990)
  • Stella Atal v Ann Abels Kiruta t/a '97 Africa Arts & Crafts (HCCS No. 0967 of 2004)
  • Claydon Architectural Metalwork Limited v DJ Higgins and Sons [1997] FSR 475
  • Obsessions Co. Ltd v Warid Telecom (U) Ltd (HCCS No. 373 of 2010)
  • Opia Moses v Chukia Lumago Roselyn & 5 Ors (HCCS No. 0022 of 2013)
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Donna Kamuli (CACA No. 121 of 2016)
  • Daniel Oboth v The New Vision Printing and Publishing Corporation (SCCA No. 12 of 1990)
  • Ahmed El Termewy v Hassan Awdi & 3 Ors (HCCS No. 95 of 2012)
  • Mohanlal Kakubhai Radia v Warid Telecom Uganda Ltd (HCCS No. 0224 of 2011)
  • Kwizera Eddie v Attorney General (SC Const. Appeal No. 01 of 2008)
  • Candiru Asina Binnia v Centenary Rural Development Bank (HCCS No. 22 of 2016)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiggundu a.k.a Bruno K v Black Market Records Entertainment - SMC Limited & 3 Others (Civil Suit 1025 of 2022) [2025] UGCommC 42 (1 April 2025)
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.