Commercial Court Division the UCC, in the Gazette is directory and not mandatory. In this regard, I was referred to the case of Sitenda Sebalu V Sam K. Njuba & Another Election Petition Appeal No. 26 of 2007. where the reference to the words “shall” in legislation was held to be directory and not mandatory. That being the case, the Minister acted within his powers under the UCA. As to Uganda’s obligations under the ITU, Counsel for the UTL submitted that nothing illegal was done in the arrangement between the Government of Uganda and GOSS. He challenged the reference made by PW2 to the ITU – Telecommunications Recommendation E. 190 (Exh. P.26) which, required under Principle No. 6 that numbering resources will only be utilized by the assignee for the specific purpose for which they have been assigned by ITU-TSB. Secondly, the fact that PW2 represented Nigeria on the ITU study Group 2 which was responsible for the publication of the document did not make her an expert that court could rely on. Furthermore, Counsel for UTL submitted that though S.40 of The UCA required an operator to comply with international conventions, regulations and recommendations; this too was directory but not mandatory. He submitted that National Courts are enjoined to apply the national laws in preference to international laws or obligations when the two conflict. He pointed out that the breach by the state of its obligations under an international treaty or law is not justiciable in its national courts but elsewhere. In this regard, I was referred to the case of Saloman V Commissioner of Customs & Excise 1966 3 All E.R 871 and the learned author Ian Brownlie in his book Public International Law (publication details were not cited). In this regard, Section 11 of the UCA took precedence over Recommendation E. 190 of the ITU. HCT - 00 - CC - CS- 297- 2008 /11