Commercial Court Division
Lastly, Counsel for UTL took the view that it was the Minister in Uganda who granted
a licence to UTL under Section 33 of the UCA and therefore it is difficult to see how
UTL could have violated its licence by doing what the Minister who issued the licence
in the first place had authorized it to do.
Resolution of the issue.
I have addressed my mind to the pleadings, the evidence before court and the
submissions of both Counsels for which I am grateful.
The issue and how it was crafted by the parties refers to assignment and I shall
address that question.
However, I am also cognizant of Order 15 rr (1) and (5)
regarding the framing of issues.
The purpose of framing issues is for court to
determine the matters in controversy between the parties. Section 33 of The
Judicature Act also enjoins the court to grant remedies so that as far as possible all
matters in controversy between the parties may be completely and finally determined
and all multiplicities of legal proceedings concerning any of those matters is avoided.
This is the true purpose of litigation and any issue so framed by the parties must
achieve that effect and where it does not, the court may on its own motion amend
the issue accordingly.
To my mind, the present issue is more than a question of assignment. It rests on
whether it was lawful for code +256 477 xxx to be used by Gemtel in Southern
Sudan.
What is Code +256 477 xxx?
The code +256 477 xxx is not defined in law. However, guidance can be obtained
from Exhibit D.26 entitled. “The international public telecommunication number Plan
HCT - 00 - CC - CS- 297- 2008
/12