Commercial Court Division UTL. UTL maintains that the Gemtel traffic is International and the UShs.3,482,303,277/= only arises because domestic rates are applied to it. UTL does not therefore disagree with the MTN computation if the traffic is found to be domestic/local. Counsel for UTL however adds a new argument that; if the traffic to Gemtel is found to be local, then, MTN is estopped from so stating it. This is because UTL notified MTN by letter dated 22nd June, 2006 that the traffic was International and instead of protesting this MTN simply sent its traffic through the system. UTL therefore relied on MTN’s actions and transmitted their traffic as such; until a year later in May, 2007 when MTN made a formal protest. Resolution of the issue. In light of my findings, that traffic from MTN to Gemtel via code +256 477 xxx was local, it follows that the computations of MTN are correct both in terms of the outstanding amount and the interest due. Of course this has to be adjusted against payments made on account by UTL during the course of the trial. As to the issue of estoppel, I find that in line with the Interconnection Agreement reliance on correspondence outside it, would offend the parole evidence rule and not meet the test set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Uganda V Masaba [1999] 1 EA 2 The definite and distinct terms entered into by the parties by their own consent regarding Interconnection are embodied in the Interconnection Agreement signed by the parties. HCT - 00 - CC - CS- 297- 2008 /28