Commercial Court Division It was suggested that the court invoke its powers under Order 15 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to frame an appropriate issue that would determine the real matters in controversy in this suit. This is a correct case for the court to do so. Each party framed an issue that was geared to afford them a favourable result. What then is the real issue in controversy for determination in this case? To my mind the real issue for determination is which rate should be applied to MTN calls made to subscribers of Gemtel i.e. local or International rates and that is what I shall determine while taking into account what the parties also had framed. The relationship between MTN and UTL In order to determine whether the calls in this suit are local or International one has to define the legal relationship between MTN and UTL. It is the requirement of the Telecommunications (Interconnection) Regulations (supra) that each provider enter into reciprocal compensation arrangements. This arrangement is popularly referred to as an Interconnection Agreement. In this suit, UTL and MTN entered into an Interconnection Agreement for reciprocal compensation effective 1st February, 2001. Both parties admit this agreement and so it is not in dispute. The Interconnection Agreement does not define what an International or local call is. However, what an International or local rate is provided for under Article 6 of the said agreement. The rates are contained in the Rates Appendix/Tariff Table appended to the said agreement. That notwithstanding Article 28 of the Interconnection Agreement provides “… This Agreement represents the entire understanding between the parties in relation to Interconnection and supersedes all previous understandings, agreement or commitments whatsoever, whether oral or written. All references to … annexes shall be deemed references to such part of this Agreement, unless the context shall otherwise require …” HCT - 00 - CC - CS- 297- 2008 /23