Page

Abu ssebagala vs mtn

14.11.2019

images abu ssebagala vs mtn

Skip to main content. In the premises and in the circumstances of this case, the objection on the ground that the application was time barred cannot be sustained. The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act makes a distinction between copyright and neighbouring rights. Costs shall be paid before the next hearing. In order to expeditiously, effectively and effectually dispose of the suit it was necessary to amend the plaint to include a prayer for a declaration that his neighbouring rights are under infringement. The two main grounds of the application are that the Applicant has already disclosed in the plaint the facts in support of the prayer and secondly that no prejudice would be occasioned to the Respondents if the proposed amendment is allowed. For instance a drama group can perform a play which is written by the copyright owner. Firstly he submitted that the application was filed out of time and is incompetent.

  • Ssebagala v. MTN (U) Ltd & Anor IP Kenya

  • Ssebagala v MTN (U) Ltd & Anor (HIGH COURT CIVIL SUIT NO OF as a Mayor of Kampala City Council and also ministerial nominee. Alhaji Nasser Ntege Sebagala v MTN Uganda & anor (MISC.

    APPLIC. No Of ) [] UGCOMMC 47 (5 May ).

    Ssebagala v. MTN (U) Ltd & Anor IP Kenya

    Share. This blogger has come across a recent judgment from the High Court in Uganda in the case of Ssebagala v. MTN (U) Ltd & Anor. In this case.
    The conclusion is that an application for amendment of pleadings ought to be made before the hearing but may be made so long as it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side at any time of the proceedings.

    Furthermore the Applicant claims that the scheduling conference took into consideration the prospects of the court pronouncing itself on the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff's neighbouring rights.

    It categorises literary, scientific and artistic works eligible for copyright. Ruling I have duly considered the question of the timeliness for an interlocutory application under the provisions of Order 12 rule 3 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

    The pleadings addressed the issue of neighbouring rights and the 3 rd party replied thereto.

    Video: Abu ssebagala vs mtn YIINO EMBOOZI YA DISMUSS . He Says MTN Advert has changed his life "Mr Google sir"

    It is therefore an exception to Order 12 rule 3 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules which gives a timeline of 15 days within which to file all other interlocutory applications after completion of the scheduling conference. Furthermore rule 6 of the Constitution Commercial Court Practice Directions permits the commercial court to give further directions with regard to amendment of pleadings at the time of the pre-trial conference.

    images abu ssebagala vs mtn
    ZUBENELGENUBI SURFACE TEMPERATURE OF EARTH
    According to Halsbury's laws of England volume 9 2 Reissue paragraph 11, there is no copyright in the performance of the work as distinct from the work itself and performances are protected in their own right.

    Nsereko Lucky HCCS ofwhere court describes the premises upon which a cause of action is discerned by court. He prayed that the application is dismissed with costs.

    Video: Abu ssebagala vs mtn Opposition leaders demand IGP resigns over leaked tapes

    Ruling I have duly considered the question of the timeliness for an interlocutory application under the provisions of Order 12 rule 3 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. However the scheduled dates for filing witness statements shall be maintained. The Applicant in his opinion has not indicated why the amendment should be allowed. The application is supported by affidavit of the Applicant.

    , Akera Derick Otim, M/S Nexus Solicitors and Advocates, P.

    O BoxKampala,/ .Ali Sengendo Ssebaggala, M/S Mwebe, Sebaggala & Co. . Advocates, P.O. BoxKampala, [email protected], Plot 14,Mayanja Abu, M/S MAKEERA&CO​.

    images abu ssebagala vs mtn

    DANIEL GALIWANGO& 2. ORS VS SSEBAGALA .

    VS MTN UGANDA LTD. VACANT POSSESSION DOMINICA W. ABU &. OTHERS VS. TURYABATUTA ISA.

    BUGANDA TEA AND COFFEE MUSA SEBAGALA. NAMBUSI TUMWINE ABU. KOMUGISHA SAM TARKAN. MTN UGANDA.
    Upon perusal of the amended plaint of the court record he came to the conclusion that the issue of infringement of neighbouring rights in the suit caller tunes is not part of the Applicant's claim in the suit. It ought to have been filed within 15 days after completing the scheduling conference under Order 12 rule 3 1 CPR. The effect of the amendment would reopen the matter and a hearing date moreover had been fixed.

    This court has considered the timelines of Order 12 rule 3 of the CPR in several decisions. The Applicant by praying for costs only and not dismissal acquiesced to the late application to which they sought time to reply. Furthermore rule 6 of the Constitution Commercial Court Practice Directions permits the commercial court to give further directions with regard to amendment of pleadings at the time of the pre-trial conference.

    images abu ssebagala vs mtn
    AMBULATORY CARE DEFINITION NHSC
    The issue of whether any of the Plaintiff's rights under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act was infringed was hotly contested by the Respondents for the same reason.

    images abu ssebagala vs mtn

    Specifically section 21 2 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act provides as follows: "The neighbouring rights attached to the auxiliary role of the performer or a producer or broadcasting company does not in any way affect the Copyright in a literary, scientific or artistic work from which it arose. As far as the Commercial Court Division is concerned, the rule for amendment of pleadings is further supported by rule 6 of the Constitution Commercial Court Directions which permits the court to give directions with regard to further amendment of pleadings.

    It is true that this is not the first time the issue of neighbouring rights is being mentioned. Counsel relied on Okidi and 2 other vs.

    Only registered users can comment.

    1. Order 12 rule 3 2 prescribes a period of about 15 days for service of interlocutory applications and a period of 15 days for reply. The facts disclosing infringement of neighbouring rights were pleaded and the Respondents had prior notice of this application.