Commercial Court Division These are the brief facts The legal arguments MTN It is the position of MTN that the code +256 477 xxx was never assigned to Southern Sudan. Counsel for MTN submitted that only the Regulator UCC by virtue of its functions under Section 4(g) and (j) of The Uganda communications Act (Cap. 106 hereinafter referred to as The “UCA” ) could allocate a numbering plan and implement international communication agreements on the matter. Counsel for the MTN further submitted that the assignment and/or the permission to use a country code while the preserve of a national regulatory authority (like UCC) required the authorization of the ITU which was not done in this case. He took the view that the Minister of Works Housing and Communication purported to allocate Uganda’s country code +256 to Southern Sudan which powers the Minister did not have. He submitted that the Minister could only issue guidelines to UCC exercisable through a statutory instrument that was to be published in the national gazette which was also not done in this case. In this regard, I was referred to Section 11 of the Uganda Communications Commissions Act which provides “ 1. The Minister may, after consultation with the commission give the commission guidelines on sector policy as may be appropriate. 2. The guidelines referred to under subsection (1) shall be in writing and shall be published by the commission in the gazette. “ Counsel for MTN further submitted that; the usage of Uganda’s country code +256 47 xxx in Southern Sudan breached both ITU regulations and the Laws of Uganda. That being the case, UTL could not rely on an illegal arrangement to claim that the traffic HCT - 00 - CC - CS- 297- 2008 /8