Wakilii

Malinga & 3 Others v Black Market Records (Civil Suit 864 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 180 · 2024 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract brought by musicians against record label; 1st, 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs withdrew after settling; matter proceeded ex parte against defendant after non-appearance at hearing
Decision
Defendant found to have breached contract; plaintiff awarded damages and permanent injunction restraining defendant from exploiting plaintiff's musical works

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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

Held that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter despite an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the agreement favouring Los Angeles County courts, where the plaintiff is a Ugandan resident, the contract was signed in Uganda, it would be costly and cumbersome for the plaintiff to litigate abroad, and the defendant submitted to jurisdiction by filing a defence without challenging it. Held that the defendant record label breached the Exclusive Recording Artist Agreement by failing to account for royalties collected and failing to advance the plaintiff musician's career. General damages of UGX 20,000,000 awarded. Permanent injunction granted restraining the defendant from dealing with the plaintiff's musical works.

Outcome

Defendant found to have breached contract; plaintiff awarded damages and permanent injunction restraining defendant from exploiting plaintiff's musical works

Facts

The 4th Plaintiff, a musician, executed an Exclusive Recording Artist Agreement with the Defendant record label on 12th February 2019 for ten months. Under the agreement, the Defendant was to manage, record, produce and market the plaintiff's music, and pay royalties ranging from 10% to 20% on various revenue streams. The Defendant was to account for royalties semi-annually by 30th June and 30th September. The plaintiff had recorded six songs before signing, which the Defendant began exploiting. The Defendant instructed third parties to remove the plaintiff's content from online platforms and prevented the plaintiff from recording new music or performing. The plaintiff testified she was locked up and suffered mental torture. The Defendant never provided accountability for royalties collected. Three other plaintiffs originally joined the suit but withdrew after settling with the Defendant. The matter proceeded ex parte against the Defendant after its non-appearance at the scheduled hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to handle the matter?
  2. Whether the Defendant breached the Exclusive Recording Artist Agreement between it and the 4th Plaintiff?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • It is hereby declared that the Defendant breached the terms of the Exclusive Recording Artist Agreement between it and the 4th Plaintiff.
  • General damages of UGX 20,000,000/= (Uganda Shillings Twenty Million Only) are hereby awarded to the 4th Plaintiff.
  • Interest is awarded on the general damages at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
  • A permanent injunction issues against the Defendant prohibiting it from dealing with the 4th Plaintiff's musical works.
  • Costs of the suit are awarded to the 4th Plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — Exclusive jurisdiction clauses — Discretion to override — Just cause
An exclusive jurisdiction clause selecting a foreign court does not oust the unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court conferred by the Constitution, and the High Court may exercise jurisdiction if the plaintiff shows just cause, including where the plaintiff is a resident of Uganda, the contract was signed in Uganda, it would be costly and cumbersome for the plaintiff to litigate abroad, and the defendant has agents operating within Uganda.
Jurisdiction — Submission to jurisdiction — Defence filed without jurisdictional challenge
Where a defendant files a Written Statement of Defence without filing an application to dispute jurisdiction, the filing of the defence is treated as a submission by the defendant to the jurisdiction of the Court, and the defendant is estopped from raising any further dispute over jurisdiction.
Breach of contract — Music recording agreement — Failure to account for royalties
A record label that undertakes to pay royalties to an artist and to provide accountability for royalties collected at specific semi-annual periods breaches the contract where it fails to provide any accountability and the evidence shows no proper records or statements of royalties due or paid to the artist.
Breach of contract — Music recording agreement — Failure to promote artist's career
A record label that contracts to manage and advance an artist's music career breaches the agreement where it prevents the artist from recording new music, performing, or making appearances, regardless of whether the label paid for some promotional services.
Special damages — Pleading and proof — Strict requirements
Special damages must not only be specifically pleaded but must also be strictly proved. A claim for special damages not pleaded in the plaint cannot be raised for the first time in submissions, as this violates the rule against raising new claims inconsistent with previous pleadings save by way of amendment.
General damages for breach — Assessment — Loss of opportunity and mental anguish
General damages for breach of a music recording contract may be awarded where the artist loses the opportunity to advance her music career through recordings and performances, and suffers mental torture and inconvenience as a result of the defendant's actions in preventing her from pursuing her profession.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (24)

  • Rabbo Enterprises (U) Ltd and Another v Commissioner General, URA (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2003)
  • Prof Egbert De Smet v Juliet Nakassaga (Civil Suit No. 387 of 2011)
  • Huadar Guangdong Chinese Co. Ltd v Damco Logistics Uganda Limited (Civil Suit No. 4 and 5 of 2012)
  • Ssentamu Joseph v Jibu Corporate Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 51 of 2021)
  • Koboko District Local Government v Okujjo Swali (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2016)
  • Uganda Telecom v Rodrigo Chaco t/a Andes Alps Trading (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 337 of 2008)
  • William Kasozi v DFCU Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 1326 of 2000)
  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 542 of 2006)
  • Omega Bank Vs O.B.C Limited (2005) 8 NWLR (pt.928) 547
  • Nakawa Trading Co. Ltd v Coffee Marketing Board (High Court Civil Suit No. 137 of 1991)
  • Mugabi John v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 133 of 2002)
  • Borham-Carter Vs Hyde Park Hotel Ltd [1948] 64 TLR
  • W.M Kyambadde Vs Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v A.S Transporters (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2004)
  • Haji Asuman Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995)
  • Waiglobe (U) Ltd v Sai Beverages Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 16 of 2017)
  • Kibimba Rice Ltd v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)
  • Maruri Reddy & Others v Bank of India (Uganda) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 804 of 2014)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank Vs Deo Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Takiya Kashwahiri & Anor v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Surgipharm Uganda v Anatoli Batabane (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2020)
  • Akena Christopher and Others v Opwonya Noah (High Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2016)
  • Uganda Development Bank Vs Muganga Construction Co. Ltd [1981] H.C.B 35
  • Abraham Jahannes v ABSA Bank (High Court Civil Suit No. 402 of 2022)

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.

Malinga & 3 Others v Black Market Records (Civil Suit 864 of 2021) [2024] UGCommC 180 (14 June 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.