IP Case Law library

Facts

The application was a prayer for grant of prohibitory injunction against the Respondents from copyright infringement. The Plaintiff is owner of copyrights in the song 'Rungu Rwa Ihiga' under copyright certificate number CR.000475. The Defendants have without the applicant's consent produced, distributed and performed the song under the title 'Adhuri Mwigithe'.

The applicant argued that the infringing work was similar to her original work in all aspects including words, melody and rhythm.

Issues

Whether the Plaintiff has established a case for grant of an interlocutory prohibitory injunction and whether the Plaintiff has established a case for grant of an interlocutory mandatory injunction.

Rule

Geila v Cassman Brown Co Ltd - for an interlocutory injunction to be awarded, an applicant must show that they have a prima facie case with a probability of success, the applicant must demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated by damages and balance of convenience must lean in the applicant's favour.

Locobail International Finance Ltd v Agroexport & Another (1986) - A mandatory injunction should only be given during interim applications in specific situations. This includes cases where the court believes the matter should be decided immediately, or when the injunction addresses a simple and easily fixable issue. It may also be granted if the defendant is trying to unfairly gain an advantage over the plaintiff. Before issuing a mandatory injunction, the court needs a strong assurance that it would be justified at the trial, which is a higher standard compared to a prohibitory injunction.

Analysis

The Court compared the two songs' translated scripts which revealed an apparent similarity and copying of the Plaintiff's work by the Defendant. This, added to the registration of the Plaintiff's work, established a prima facie case, in that the Plaintiff's moral and economic copyright had been infringed.

The Court further reasoned that damages could not adequately compensate the Applicant, holding that damages cannot be an adequate remedy where there has been a clear breach of law, citing Section 35 of the Copyright Act as the breached law. The Court found the registration and apparent copyright to tilt the balance of probabilities in the Plaintiff's/Applicant's favour.

The Court refused to grant an interlocutory mandatory injunction to avoid the risk of determining the suit at the interlocutory stage without the chance of analysing each piece of evidence each party wished to rely on. According to Geila v Cassman Brown Co Ltd, the applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, that they will suffer irreparable harm which cannot be compensated by damages, and that the balance of convenience is in their favour - a standard the Court found the Plaintiff had met for the prohibitory injunction.

The refusal to grant an interlocutory mandatory injunction also aligns with legal standards, as Locobail International Finance Ltd v Agroexport & Another (1986) highlights that mandatory injunctions during interim applications should be granted only in specific situations. The Court's concern about prematurely deciding the case before a full trial and assessment of evidence is reasonable and prevents potential judicial overreach.

Conclusion

The Court granted the applicant the interlocutory prohibitory injunction but not the mandatory injunction.

Ruling available here.