In the evolving landscape of intellectual property law, particularly in the digital age, the boundaries of copyright protection often spark intense debate. One such pivotal case in Uganda is Al Hajji Nasser Ntege Sebagala v MTN Uganda Ltd & SMS Media Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 283 of 2012), decided on March 6, 2015, by Justice Christopher Madrama Izama in the Commercial Division of the High Court. This ruling, which dismissed the plaintiff’s claims of copyright infringement, highlighted the nuances of authorship, fixation, and public domain under Uganda’s Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006. Despite the passage of time, now over a decade since the decision, the case remains a cornerstone for understanding how spontaneous spoken words in public settings intersect with commercial exploitation, with no reported appeals or reversals altering its outcome as of 2025
This article delves into the facts, legal issues, court’s holding, and underlying reasons, while also examining the broader implications for creators, media entities, and telecom companies in Uganda and beyond.
Background: Politics, Media, and Commercial Interests Collide
Al Hajji Nasser Ntege Sebagala, a prominent Ugandan politician, former Mayor of Kampala, and a figure known for his charismatic public persona, found himself at the center of this dispute. In 2011, following his nomination as a Cabinet Minister, Sebagala underwent vetting by Parliament’s Appointments Committee. Emerging from the session, he was approached by a crowd of journalists and onlookers in the parliamentary precincts. What ensued was an impromptu question-and-answer exchange, conducted in a mix of English and Luganda, where Sebagala’s responses very witty, engaging, and laced with humor—elicited laughter and public amusement.
Unbeknownst to Sebagala at the time, employees of SMS Media Ltd, a third-party content provider, recorded the interaction audiovisually without his explicit consent for commercial purposes. These recordings were later edited into short audio clips, transformed into ringtones or caller tunes with codes such as 504529, 504530, 504528, and 504531. The edits involved slowing down the audio, adding catchiness, and removing the journalists’ questions, leaving primarily Sebagala’s voice overlaid with background reactions.
SMS Media then sold these ringtones to MTN Uganda Ltd, a leading telecommunications company, which made them available to its subscribers for a fee. Over two years, these tunes generated revenue, capitalizing on Sebagala’s popularity and the viral appeal of his phrases. Sebagala, upon discovering this, sued MTN for copyright infringement, seeking declarations, injunctions, an audit of proceeds, damages, and costs. MTN denied liability and joined SMS Media as a third party for potential indemnity.
The case underscored a growing tension in the digital era blazing up questions like; can public figures claim ownership over their unscripted words when recorded and monetized by others?
Key Facts to Note…
- The Recording: The interaction was spontaneous, with Sebagala answering questions about the vetting process and other topics. He admitted awareness of being recorded by media but claimed no consent for commercial ringtone use.
- Editing and Distribution: SMS Media fixed the sounds into material form, edited them by altering speed for appeal, and supplied them to MTN. Evidence included a video exhibit (TPD1) showing the Q&A and audio CDs confirming the ringtones matched Sebagala’s voice.
- Admitted Elements: All parties agreed the ringtones featured Sebagala’s voice. Disputes centered on ownership and infringement.
- Plaintiff’s Position: Sebagala argued his “speeches” were original literary works as addresses or similar under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act, vesting copyright in him as the author upon fixation.
- Defenses: MTN and SMS Media contended the works were sound recordings authored by SMS Media as the producer. They emphasized the public, news-like nature of the event and lack of originality in impromptu responses.
The trial involved witness testimonies, cross-examinations, and exhibits, with minimal factual disputes thus focusing instead on legal interpretations.
Legal Issues Framed by the Court
The joint scheduling memorandum outlined four core issues:
- Whether the plaintiff (Sebagala) has any copyright in the caller tunes.
- Whether the defendant (MTN) and/or third party (SMS Media) infringed the plaintiff’s copyright.
- Whether the plaintiff’s speeches are protected works under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006.
- What remedies are available to the parties?
These issues intertwined, hinging on definitions of “author,” “originality,” and “fixation” under the Act.
The Court’s Holding: Dismissal of Claims
Justice Madrama dismissed Sebagala’s suit in its entirety, awarding costs to MTN and SMS Media. MTN’s indemnity claim against SMS Media was also dismissed, as no liability arose.
- No Copyright for Sebagala: The court ruled that Sebagala was not the author of the works, which were classified as sound recordings rather than literary speeches.
- No Infringement: Without copyright ownership, infringement claims failed.
- Works Not Protected as Claimed: Spoken words require fixation to be protected, and authorship vests in the fixer/producer.
- No Remedies: All prayers for injunctions, damages, audits, and unjust enrichment were denied.
This outcome reinforced that copyright protects expressions fixed in material form, not mere ideas or unscripted utterances.
Ratio Dicidendi: Statutes, Precedents, and Key Determinants
The judgment meticulously analyzed Uganda’s Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006, alongside persuasive international precedents. Here are the pivotal elements:
1. Authorship and Fixation under the Act
- Section 2 of Cap 222 defines an “author” as the physical person who creates a protected work, and for sound recordings for instance fixation of sounds in material form like discs, the “producer”, organizer and financier of the fixation holds authorship.
- Section 4 of Cap 222 requires works to be original and reduced to material form. Sebagala’s words were spoken ideas excluded by Section 6 of Cap 222, not fixed by him. SMS Media performed the fixation and editing, creating derivative works under Section 5(2) of Cap 222.
- The court distinguished this from prepared speeches, noting the spontaneity: Court noted that “The Plaintiff did not give a speech of any kind but he merely answered questions… It was a spontaneous interview.”
2. Originality and Public Nature
- Originality as propound in Section 4(3) of Cap 222 demands independent effort. The court found Sebagala’s responses lacked this, as they were reactive and unprepared, not reflecting personal turmoil or skill beyond casual conversation.
- The public setting was crucial, as a politician intending dissemination, Sebagala’s words entered the public domain without restrictions. Precedents like Gould Estate v Stoddart Publishing (Canada, 1996) and Falwell v Penthouse (US, 1981) supported that oral statements in interviews don’t attract copyright for the speaker.
- Walter v Lane (UK, 1900) was cited approvingly for vesting copyright in the reporter/fixer, not the speaker.
3. No Moral or Neighbouring Rights
- Moral rights as provided under Section 10 of Cap 222 apply only to authors and as for Sebagala, he wasn’t one.
- He wasn’t a “performer” according to Section 2 of Cap 222, as his responses weren’t a deliberate presentation of works.
4. Unjust Enrichment Alternative
- Drawing from Fibrosa Spolka v Fairbairn (UK, 1943) and other Ugandan cases, the court rejected this, finding no unjust benefit at Sebagala’s expense. SMS Media’s labor justified their revenue, and Sebagala intended public sharing.
Implications for Copyright Law in Uganda
This case set a precedent that spontaneous public utterances, even by public figures, don’t automatically confer copyright to the speaker upon recording.
It empowers content creators and media houses to monetize public events, provided they handle fixation. For politicians and celebrities, it underscores the need for explicit agreements or prepared scripts to claim protection. In the era of social media and AI-generated content, it raises questions about evolving laws, though no amendments directly stem from this case by 2025.
Critics argue it undervalues oral expressions in African contexts, where storytelling and speeches hold cultural weight. Proponents see it as safeguarding innovation in digital content.
Conclusion
As we reflect on Al Hajji Nasser Ntege Sebagala v MTN Uganda Ltd & SMS Media Ltd from the vantage point of August 30, 2025, a decade after the High Court’s March 6, 2015, ruling, the case stands as a seminal touchstone in Ugandan intellectual property jurisprudence. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama’s decision, which dismissed Sebagala’s claims of copyright infringement and unjust enrichment, underscored the rigid statutory boundaries of authorship, fixation, and originality under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006. By prioritizing the role of the producer (in this instance, SMS Media Ltd) in fixing spontaneous spoken words into material form, the judgment effectively shielded media and telecom entities from liability when monetizing public utterances without the speaker’s explicit consent. This outcome, unappealed and unaltered as of 2025, continues to shape how courts interpret copyright in an era where digital recordings and viral content proliferate unchecked.
In the intervening years, the case has served as a cautionary narrative for public figures, politicians, and everyday creators navigating the blurred lines between free expression and commercial exploitation. Sebagala’s charismatic, impromptu responses captured amid the bustle of parliamentary precincts epitomized the vibrancy of Ugandan political discourse, yet the court’s emphasis on the mechanics of creation over the “spark of inspiration” highlighted a potential gap in protecting oral traditions and unscripted genius. This ruling has influenced subsequent disputes, reinforcing that mere utterance, even if original in spirit, does not confer automatic copyright unless the speaker actively reduces it to a tangible form. For instance, it echoes in discussions around celebrity endorsements, viral memes, and user-generated content on platforms like TikTok and X (formerly Twitter), where recordings of public events can be repurposed without recourse. In a country where oral storytelling remains a cultural cornerstone, the decision prompts ongoing debates about whether the law adequately safeguards African expressive forms against Western-centric fixation requirements.
Relating this to the current landscape in 2025, Uganda’s creative industries have exploded amid rapid digitalization, with streaming services, mobile content providers, and AI-driven tools transforming how intellectual property is created, shared, and monetized. The proliferation of smartphones which are now ubiquitous even in rural areas has amplified scenarios akin to Sebagala’s, where casual public interactions can be instantly recorded, edited, and sold as ringtones, NFTs, or short-form videos. Yet, the 2006 Act, as interpreted in this case, has held firm, providing stability for businesses like MTN while exposing vulnerabilities for individuals. No major appeals or reversals have emerged, as evidenced by the absence of higher court interventions in related records, allowing the High Court’s reasoning to permeate legal education and practice.
However, the winds of reform are stirring. As of August 30, 2025, the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Amendment) Bill, introduced in 2024 and tabled for its first reading in Parliament earlier this year, signals a potential shift toward modernization. This Bill, still pending full enactment, proposes key updates such as extending copyright protection from 50 to 70 years, mandating written assignments for transfers, and enhancing fair use provisions in line with international treaties like the Marrakesh Treaty for accessibility. While these amendments do not directly overhaul the authorship rules central to Sebagala’s defeat, such as vesting rights in producers for sound recordings, they aim to address digital-age challenges, including online piracy and cross-border enforcement. If passed, the Bill could indirectly bolster protections for performers and speakers by clarifying neighbouring rights and introducing mechanisms for equitable remuneration in commercial adaptations. Advocacy from artists, like musician Eddy Kenzo, has pushed for expedited progress, reflecting frustrations with the current framework’s limitations in an era of deep fakes and algorithmic content creation.
Critically, the case’s relevance endures amid global trends. In 2025, with Uganda’s integration into the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and increasing ties to international IP regimes, the decision aligns with efforts to harmonize laws while protecting local innovation. Yet, it also exposes inequities for instance public figures like Sebagala, whose words fuel public discourse, may still find themselves “commodified” without benefit, prompting calls for broader moral rights or personality protections. As AI tools democratize content fixation, enabling anyone to capture and remix public speech, the principles from this ruling could face tests in future litigation, potentially influencing amendments or judicial reinterpretations.
Ultimately, Sebagala v MTN reminds us that copyright law is not static but a reflection of societal values balancing innovation, access, and equity. In today’s hyper-connected Uganda, where digital creativity drives economic growth, the case urges lawmakers, creators, and corporations to evolve protections that honor both the fixer and the originator. As the Amendment Bill progresses, it offers hope for a more inclusive regime, ensuring that the next “viral moment” benefits all stakeholders in this vibrant East African nation.
Discussion about this post