Commercial Court Division Counsel for UTL submitted that the definition of what, International, local, regional or premium traffic will depend on what is provided for in the Interconnection Agreement (Exh. P.1). In this particular case, Counsel for UTL drew court’s attention to the Interconnection Agreement which provides “6.1. The interconnect rates applicable to this agreement are contained in the Rates Appendix/Tariff appended to this agreement. 6.4 For transit traffic from other parties network via the other party’s network to a third party operator the price shall be the transit traffic rate as agreed between the parties and recorded in the Rates Appendix/Tariff appended to this Agreement …” Counsel for UTL submitted that the Interconnection Agreement should be construed as it is written as was held Hon. Justice Kanyeihamba (JSC as he then was) in the case of MTN (U) Ltd V Uganda Telecom Limited [2005] EA 225. Counsel for UTL submitted the relevant rates in the Appendix/Tariff Table are found in Section A1 and A4. This is because traffic originating from the +256 477 xxx code and terminating on MTN can only be charged by MTN in accordance with Section A1 being locally terminated tariff. On the other hand, local traffic terminating on the code +256 477 xxx Gemtel is governed by Section A4 and is International. This is because all the International Bands are in respect to traffic to (and not from) places outside Uganda. Gemtel operating in and out of Southern Sudan is in a country other than Uganda. Counsel for UTL relied on the testimony of Dw1 where he testified how traffic from the UTL network ended up on the Gemtel network. DW1 testified that traffic from the UTL network to Gemtel passed through the UTL International gateway at Mpoma Uganda via satellite (International link) and down to the International gateway of HCT - 00 - CC - CS- 297- 2008 /21