Commercial Court Division The above functions put this current dispute squarely on the door step of the UCC. Indeed all significant correspondence relating to this dispute was copied to UCC including one dated 23rd May, 2007 (Exh. D.13) when UTL blocked MTN traffic. What is lacking is action by UCC which could have regulated this process and averted this suit. I shall refer more to this at the end of the Judgment. The aforementioned notwithstanding, I am persuaded by the opinion of PW2 on this matter. She had the best qualifications and experience to handle the technical issues. Her testimony was clear and consistent. She also had the added advantage of having worked as a telecom regulator in Nigeria. The compelling testimony of DW1 notwithstanding of how MTN traffic to +256 477 xxx would have to be routed through their Mpoma Satellite as would other International calls, the evidence shows that in reality, the UTL and Gemtel network were one and the same. This conclusion is akin to the company law principle of “lifting the veil” to ascertain the reality of the transactions. Gemtel had no network outside that of UTL and without the code +256 477 xxx which was a local code for Ugandan purposes, Gemtel could not operate. As found earlier, this was an ad hoc arrangement of a temporary nature that had been sanctioned by the Minister in Uganda. Everything technical about the said arrangement was Ugandan and I accordingly so find. As to the rate, UTL had notified MTN that a rate of USD 0.50 would be applicable to them from 1st June, 2006. A perusal of the Interconnection Agreement and especially the tariff table Section A4 on International transit traffic shows that no such tariff existed. Article 28 of the Interconnection Agreement makes it impossible to apply the rate of USD 0.50 without a variation of the agreement as envisaged under Article 21. No evidence of a variation was presented to court. In any event, my aforementioned findings leave only one logical conclusion that the said traffic to Gemtel from MTN was locally terminated within the meaning of Section A1 (i.e. at UShs.100) of the tariff table of the Interconnection Agreement and so I find accordingly. HCT - 00 - CC - CS- 297- 2008 /26