Commercial Court Division

The Defendant disputes liability for that sum and contends that the same is arrived
at by the Plaintiff wrongly applying domestic/local rates to traffic originating from the
Plaintiff’s network transiting through the Defendant’s network and terminating onto
the network of Gemtel a third party operating in and out of Southern Sudan. The
Defendant contends that if international transit traffic rates were applied instead of
domestic rates, then, there would be no amount due from it to the Plaintiff.
The two parties do not dispute a business relationship in the form of a
telecommunications Interconnection Agreement. It is also not in dispute that traffic
to Gemtel was routed through the Defendant UTL.
Pre trial conferencing
At the pre trial conference and subsequently during the trial, it was evident that there
was no consensus on the wording of at least one issue. The main question in dispute
that the parties have a problem phrasing relates to how the traffic on code +256 477
xxx through UTL to Gemtel should be treated i.e. is it local or International traffic.
The Plaintiff’s proposed the issue

“Whether telephone traffic originating or terminating on code +256 477
xxx is local or International traffic?”
The Defendants on the other hand proposed the issue

“Whether traffic originating from the Plaintiff’s network and terminating
on code +256 477 xxx terminated on the Defendant’s network or
terminated on the network of Gemtel in Southern Sudan …?”
The Defendants take the view that they pleaded a material proposition of fact, that it
was not liable for the suit sum claimed because the traffic to which it related was in
fact International transit traffic terminating on the network of Gemtel a telecom
service provider in Southern Sudan operating under license from the Ministry of
Telecommunications and Postal Services of the Government of Southern Sudan
HCT - 00 - CC - CS- 297- 2008


Select target paragraph3