Onang and 7 Others v Roofings Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 139 of 2018)
Observed later treatment
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
The court held that the plaintiffs, professional athletes who participated in a commercial video shoot for Roofings Limited's AZED iron sheets advertisement, gave implied consent to the use of their images. The court found that the plaintiffs were fully briefed on the purpose of the shoot, wore branded uniforms, were paid for their participation, and allowed filming without objection. The court distinguished the case from Asege Winnie v Opportunity Bank, holding that consent for commercial use of image rights need not be explicit or in writing where circumstances demonstrate implied consent. The suit was dismissed with costs.
Outcome
Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant and third party
Facts
On 19 August 2017, eight professional athletes from Prisons Athletics Club were approached by Moses Asonya, the National Athletics Coach, to participate in a sports activity. On 20 August 2017, they attended Namboole Stadium for what they claimed they believed was a sponsorship solicitation event. They were given sports uniforms bearing words including 'AZED', 'Feeke', 'Kiwani', and 'Kichups', and participated in a filmed race simulation with artificial rain effects created by water cannons. The filming was repeated multiple times. The plaintiffs were paid between 150,000 and 400,000 shillings. In December 2017, the plaintiffs discovered their images were used in a television commercial advertisement for Roofings Limited's AZED iron sheets. The defendant and third party contended that the plaintiffs were fully informed from the outset that the shoot was for a commercial advertisement, were briefed by the coach and production director, and were paid according to standard market rates for non-speaking roles in commercials.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action against the defendant and/or the third party?
- Whether the plaintiffs' image rights were infringed upon by the defendant and/or third party?
- Whether the defendant and/or third party are liable for passing off, misrepresentation, deceit and false endorsement?
- Whether the defendant and/or third party unjustly enriched themselves by use of the plaintiffs' images?
- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 10% royalty fees arising out of the sale of the product?
- Whether the third party is liable to indemnify the defendant for any sum the defendant may be adjudged to pay the plaintiffs?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Suit dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the defendant and third party.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (6)
- Asege Winnie v Opportunity Bank Ltd and MAAD Ltd (HCCS No. 756 of 2013)
- Krouse v Chrysler Canada Ltd (1973) 13 CPR (2d) 28
- Athans v Canadian Adventure Camps (1977) CAN H1 1255
- Bassajabaka Yakub v MTN (U) Ltd (HCCS No. 100 of 2012)
- Catherine Njeri Wanjiru v Machakos University (High Court Petition No. E021 of 2021)
- Sharman v C Schmidt & Sons Inc 216 F Supp 401 (ED 1963)
Cases citing this judgment (1)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.