In the digital age, where social media, advertising, and AI-generated content dominate daily life, the concept of image rights therein encompassing an individual’s control over their likeness, name, voice, or other identifiable features, has become increasingly vital. Yet, in Uganda as of August, 2025, image rights remain shrouded in ambiguity, often described as a “grey area” by legal experts. Unlike jurisdictions with dedicated statutes, Uganda lacks a standalone law explicitly codifying these rights, leading to a fragmented patchwork of constitutional provisions, data protection regulations, intellectual property laws, and common law principles. This uncertainty creates challenges for individuals, businesses, and courts alike, as protections are inferred rather than prescribed, often resulting in case-by-case interpretations that leave room for exploitation and disputes. This article explores the nebulous state of image rights in Uganda, highlights key cases with full citations, and draws comparisons with other jurisdictions to underscore the gaps and potential paths forward.
The Fragmented Legal Framework.
Uganda’s approach to image rights is emblematic of its broader legal evolution, rooted in English common law but adapted to local contexts without comprehensive modernization this tracing its roots from the Orders in Council which had a reception clause. As of 2025, no specific legislation addresses image rights sui generis (in their own right), forcing reliance on indirect safeguards. The 1995 Constitution (as amended) provides a foundational layer through Article 27, which guarantees the right to privacy and prohibits unwarranted interference with personal life, including unauthorized use of one’s image. Article 29 on freedom of expression further allows limitations to prevent misuse, but these are broad and require judicial fleshing out.
The Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019 (DPPA) offers the most contemporary tool, treating images as “personal data” and mandating consent for processing, with penalties for breaches up to UGX 480 million or imprisonment. However, its focus on data rather than personality rights limits its scope, particularly in non-digital contexts. The Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006, intersects by protecting photographs as artistic works, but authorship vests in the creator in this case a photographer, not the subject, unless moral rights are invoked. Recent discussions around the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights (Amendment) Bill, 2025, gazetted in April 2025 and undergoing public consultations which aims to modernize IP laws for digital exploitation, but it does not directly tackle image rights, leaving the grey area intact.
Common law torts like passing off, breach of confidence, and unjust enrichment fill some voids, but enforcement is inconsistent. This reliance on interpretation exacerbates the grey zone, as seen in sports and employment contracts where “image rights” clauses appear without statutory backing. Scholars advocate for sui generis protection, especially amid AI threats like deepfakes, but no such reforms have materialized by mid-2025.
Judicial Attempts to Clarify the Haze.
Ugandan courts have incrementally shaped image rights through rulings, though the lack of precedent-binding hierarchy keeps the area murky. Key cases include:
Sikuku Agaitano v Uganda Baati Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 298 of 2012) [2014] UGCommC 3 (15 January 2014): In this employment-related dispute, the plaintiff claimed infringement when his employer used his image in promotional materials without consent. The High Court dismissed the suit, ruling that while the photographer holds copyright, the subject retains limited privacy rights. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama emphasized that spontaneous workplace photos do not automatically confer image rights to the employee, highlighting the grey balance between IP and privacy.
Asege Winnie v Opportunity Bank (U) Ltd & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 756 of 2013) [2016] UGCommC 39 (2 May 2016): A farmer sued her bank and an advertising firm for using her image in promotional billboards without permission. The court awarded damages for breach of privacy and commercial appropriation, marking a rare victory for image rights under constitutional grounds. However, the joint liability ruling against both defendants underscores the uncertainty in apportioning blame in collaborative misuse.
Recent cases further illustrate the evolving, yet unclear, landscape:
Proline Soccer Academy Ltd v Federation of Uganda Football Associations (FUFA) [2024] UGCommC: This sports law ruling invalidated blanket image rights waivers for national team players, requiring individual consent and equitable contracts. It benefited athletes but exposed flaws in federations’ exploitation of players’ likenesses for sponsorships.
Shadia Nalubega v Stabex International Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause No. 665 of 2021) [2023/2024 UGHC: The court found infringement of an ex-employee’s privacy via unauthorized image use, awarding damages but relying on torts rather than specific rights.
Patrick Odeng Pius v Nanjing Hotel (High Court reinstatement, July 2025): A Shs 200 million suit for unjust enrichment from image misuse was reinstated, signaling growing judicial scrutiny but no systemic