Commercial Court Division
the UCC, in the Gazette is directory and not mandatory.
In this regard, I was
referred to the case of
Sitenda Sebalu V Sam K. Njuba & Another Election Petition Appeal No. 26
of 2007.
where the reference to the words “shall” in legislation was held to be directory and
not mandatory. That being the case, the Minister acted within his powers under the
UCA.
As to Uganda’s obligations under the ITU, Counsel for the UTL submitted that nothing
illegal was done in the arrangement between the Government of Uganda and GOSS.
He challenged the reference made by PW2 to the ITU – Telecommunications
Recommendation E. 190 (Exh. P.26) which, required under Principle No. 6 that
numbering resources will only be utilized by the assignee for the specific purpose for
which they have been assigned by ITU-TSB.
Secondly, the fact that PW2 represented Nigeria on the ITU study Group 2 which was
responsible for the publication of the document did not make her an expert that court
could rely on.
Furthermore, Counsel for UTL submitted that though S.40 of The UCA required an
operator to comply with international conventions, regulations and recommendations;
this too was directory but not mandatory.
He submitted that National Courts are
enjoined to apply the national laws in preference to international laws or obligations
when the two conflict. He pointed out that the breach by the state of its obligations
under an international treaty or law is not justiciable in its national courts but
elsewhere. In this regard, I was referred to the case of
Saloman V Commissioner of Customs & Excise 1966 3 All E.R 871 and
the learned author Ian Brownlie in his book Public International Law
(publication details were not cited).
In this regard, Section 11 of the UCA took
precedence over Recommendation E. 190 of the ITU.
HCT - 00 - CC - CS- 297- 2008
/11