November 22, 2023.
KAMPALA, Uganda | The High Court in Kampala has ruled in favor of Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) and MTN Uganda in a case filed by One Stop Events Centre Ltd. The case, amounting to 2 billion Uganda Shillings, alleged wrongful allocation and use of a short code.
The dispute arose when UCC licensed One Stop Events Centre Ltd to use short code 190 for providing directory services through short messages. However, upon activation, the company discovered that MTN was already using the same code, rendering it unavailable for their intended purpose. Despite notifying UCC, a resolution remained elusive, and the license eventually expired.
One Stop Events Centre Ltd filed a joint lawsuit against UCC and MTN Uganda, seeking compensation for wrongful allocation of short code 190, totaling 2 billion Uganda Shillings, along with damages, interest, and legal costs.
During the court proceedings, UCC presented evidence demonstrating that One Stop Events Centre Ltd received approval for the short code on January 12, 2012. The company was advised to activate the code within three calendar months, with a potential revocation if the deadline was not met. By April 10, 2012, no activation had occurred, prompting UCC to grant a one-month extension. The court found no evidence of code activation within the stipulated timeframe.
MTN, on the other hand, provided evidence indicating their prior use of Short Code 190 when One Stop Events Centre Ltd requested it.
Justice Esta Nambayo of the High Court Civil Division emphasized that the plaintiff failed to cross-check with service providers before applying for Short Code 190, despite clear communication from UCC advising applicants to ensure compatibility with service providers.
In her ruling, Justice Nambayo stated that One Stop Events Centre Ltd did not establish a cause of action against the defendants, leading to the dismissal of the case. The judgment included an order for the plaintiff to bear the legal costs.
This verdict underscores the importance of due diligence in business interactions, with the court emphasizing the necessity of cross-checking with service providers before seeking regulatory approval. The ruling sets a precedent for similar cases and reaffirms the significance of adherence to communication protocols outlined by regulatory bodies.
