Contents

1. Summary
   1. Facts
   2. Holding
2. Comment
3. Further resources
4. Decision

Summary

The High Court held that Stabex International Ltd (the “Defendant”) infringed upon Nadia Nalubega's (the “Plaintiff”) image rights and her right to privacy when the Defendant, through its agents, took the Plaintiff’s photographs and used them in promotional material without her consent. The refusal by the Defendant to pull down the images caused the Plaintiff distress for which the Plaintiff was entitled to UGX5M in damages.

Facts

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Customer Service Assistant on June 2019 and March 2021. She claims that while in the course of her employment with the Defendant, she was photographed by the Defendant without her consent, and her photograph used in the Defendant's advertising and promotional material, namely billboards, fliers and in its social media without her her approval. Furthermore, the Defendant continued to use the Plaintiff's images without her consent even after she left their employment in March 2021.

She claimed misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, false endorsement and breach of confidence in the continued use of her images by the Defendant. The Plaintiff sought orders for recovery of royalty fees for unauthorized use of her photos, general damages and a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from further using her images without her consent.

The Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s claims and alleging that her consent was sought and impliedly given at the time of signing the employment contract. The Respondent further alleged that she also orally consented to the taking the photos atbthe time the photos were taken.

Holding

The High Court held as follows:

• The Plaintiff's image rights were infringed upon by the Defendant.
• The Defendant breached the Plaintiff’s right to privacy.
• The Plaintiff’s photos were personal data since they could be used to identify her and so the collection, processing and storage i.e. taking her photos and using them for advertising purposes was governed by the DPPA.
• The Defendant did not procure the Plaintiff’s consent before taking and using her photos for advertising and this amounted to a breach of the DPPA and a violation of her right to privacy.
• In order to succeed in a claim for infringement of personality rights, the Plaintiff did not had to prove that he or she had a marketable value in his or her likeliness.
• In order to get compensation under the DPPA, a Plaintiff had to prove that the Defendant’s action had caused damage or distress. The continued use of the Plaintiff’s photos by the Defendant caused her mental and psychological distress.