Wakilii

Proline Soccer Academy Limited v MTN Uganda Limited, M s CQ Saathi & Saathi & FUFA (U) Limited (Civil Suit 317 of 2011)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 13 · 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 and infringement of image rights
Decision
Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant for general damages, interest and costs; suit dismissed against the second defendant with costs

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, as exclusive licensee of the image rights of eleven Uganda Cranes players under an agreement dated 4th July 2007, had standing to sue for infringement of those rights. FUFA could not validly assign the players' image rights to MTN through sponsorship agreements as it had no contractual relationship with the players and had not obtained their consent. MTN's continued use of the players' images in advertising beyond the expiry of the one-year licence on 8th September 2008 constituted infringement. Judgment entered for the plaintiff for general damages and costs; suit dismissed against the second defendant as it acted as an agent of the first defendant.

Outcome

Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant for general damages, interest and costs; suit dismissed against the second defendant with costs

Facts

The plaintiff, Pro-line Soccer Academy Limited, obtained exclusive licences from nine Uganda Cranes players on 4th July 2007 to commercially exploit their images. On 7th September 2007, the plaintiff entered a one-year contract with the second defendant (an advertising agency) to procure eleven Uganda Cranes players for photoshoots to be used exclusively by the first defendant (MTN Uganda) in its advertising. The contract expired on 8th September 2008. MTN continued using the images in its advertising beyond the expiry date, justifying this by reference to sponsorship agreements it had entered with FUFA in May 2007 and September 2010, which purported to grant MTN rights to feature Uganda Cranes players in promotional activities. The plaintiff sued for infringement of image rights and breach of contract.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff owns the players'/models' image rights in issue.
  2. Whether the defendants are in breach of any contract.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment for continued use of its models' images for the period of three years in line with the contract dated 7th September 2007.
  4. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant.
  • General damages awarded in the sum of UGX 570,600,000.
  • Interest awarded at 6% per annum from the date of filing suit (6th September 2011) until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff against the first defendant.
  • Suit against the second defendant dismissed with costs to the second defendant.
  • Third party (FUFA) found liable to indemnify the first defendant under sponsorship agreements.

Rules and key headnotes

Image Rights — Nature and Ownership — Personality Rights and Publicity Rights
Image rights are personality rights that enable individuals to control the commercial use of their name, likeness, voice, signature and other personal characteristics unique to them. They are personal rights owned by the individual and cannot be transferred, though the economic aspect may be licensed for commercial exploitation.
Image Rights — Licensing — Exclusive Licence and Standing to Sue
An exclusive licensee of image rights has standing to sue for infringement of those rights where the licensing agreement grants beneficial ownership of the proprietary rights for commercial exploitation, even if the agreement does not expressly reserve the right to sue and even if the licensors retain the ability to license to others.
Image Rights — Sports Associations — Capacity to Assign Players' Image Rights
A sports federation such as FUFA cannot assign the image rights of individual players to commercial sponsors without the consent of those players, merely by virtue of its regulatory role in the sport or its power to select players for the national team. In the absence of express contractual assignment or established trade usage, no implied consent arises from a player's acceptance of a call-up to the national team.
Image Rights versus Copyright — Conflict where Consent is Absent
Where a photograph of an individual is taken and used for commercial purposes without the subject's consent, the image rights of the photographed person prevail over the copyright of the photographer. Consent of the photographed person is a conditio sine qua non for copyright to be validly claimed and exercised over a picture featuring that person's image.
Agency — Disclosed Principal — Liability of Agent
Where a contract is executed by an agent on behalf of a disclosed principal and the principal's existence and identity are made known to the third party through words and performance of acts authorised by the contract, the agent cannot be held personally liable for breach of contract by the principal.
Consent — Temporal Limitation — Lapse of Permission
Consent to the use of image rights given subject to a temporal limitation lapses on the expiry of the specified period. Continued use of the images beyond that date without fresh consent constitutes infringement of the image rights, and the expired contract cannot be deemed renewed by conduct in the absence of mutuality of performance by both parties.
Third Party Notice — Limitation Period for Indemnity Claims
A cause of action for indemnity does not accrue until the indemnified party suffers actual loss, which in the case of a contractual indemnity arising from court proceedings occurs when judgment is entered fixing the liability and quantum. The limitation period for a third party claim for indemnity runs from that date, not from the date of expiry of the underlying indemnity contract.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (27)

  • Proactive Sports Management Ltd v Rooney and others [2010] EWHC 1807 (QB); [2011] EWCA Civ 1444
  • Asege Winnie v Opportunity Bank (U) Ltd and another (Civil Suit No. 756 of 2013)
  • Jessicar Clarise Wanjiru v Davinci Aesthetics & Reconstruction Centre and two others [2017] eKLR
  • Catherine Njeri Wanjiru v Machakos University [2022] KEHC 10599 (KLR)
  • Shimlon Mwangi Kuria v the University of Kabianga [2023] KEHC 809 (KLR)
  • Haelan Laboratories Inc v Topps Chewing Gum Inc 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953)
  • von Hannover v Germany (No. 2) (2012) 55 EHRR 15 (ECtHR Grand Chamber)
  • Robyn Rihanna Fenty and others v Arcadia Group Brands Limited and another [2015] 1 WLR 329
  • Creation Records Limited v News Group Newspapers [1997] EMLR 444; [1997] EWHC Ch 370
  • Michael Kirk Douglas and another v Hello! Ltd (No. 3) [2005] EWCA Civ 595; [2006] QB 125
  • Edmund Irvine Tidswell Ltd v Talksport Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2355; [2002] 2 All ER 414
  • Football Association Premier League Ltd v Panini UK Ltd [2004] FSR 1; [2003] EWCA Civ 995
  • Njau and others v City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] 1 EA 397
  • United Lacquer Mfg Corp v Maas & Waldstein Co 111 F. Supp. 139 (D.NJ. 1953)
  • Textile Productions Inc v Mead Corp 134 F.3d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
  • Vaupel Textilmaschinen KG v Meccanica Euro Italia SPA 944 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
  • Morrow v Microsoft Corp 499 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
  • Ram v Singh (1933) 5 ULR 76
  • Friendship Container Manufacture Ltd v Mitchell Cotts (K) Ltd [2001] 2 EA 338
  • Phenehas Agaba v Swift Freight International Ltd (Civil Suit No. 143 of 2000)
  • Overseas Touring Co (Road Services) Ltd v African Produce Agency (1949) Ltd [1962] EA 190
  • Yafesi Walusimbi v Attorney-General of Uganda [1959] 1 EA 223
  • Gould v Johnson (1702) 2 Salk 422; 91 ER 367
  • Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Hett Stubbs and Kemp (a firm) [1978] 3 All ER 571
  • Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514
  • Coffee Time Donuts Incorporated v 2197938 Ontario Inc 2022 ONCA 435
  • Christelle Deliège v Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL and others (C-51/96 and C-191/97) [2000] ECR I-2549

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Proline Soccer Academy Limited v MTN Uganda Limited, M s CQ Saathi & Saathi & FUFA (U) Limited (Civil Suit 317 of 2011) [2024] UGCommC 13 (2 February 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.