Sport

2015/16 Uganda Cup: Club Registration in Progress

Defending champions SC Villa celebrating

Telecom giant, pilule http://csrf.net/wp-content/plugins/bbpress/templates/default/extras/single-user.php MTN has come out to respond to the statement issued by Eeze money, viagra http://cfsk.org/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/class.jetpack-jitm.php in regards to the Shs 2.3b High court ordered MTN to pay to EzeeMoney as damages for sabotaging the latter’s mobile money business.

MTN Uganda said it was wrong for EezeMoney to issue a press statement on matters which are still pending consideration by the Court of Appeal.

MTN also finds it wrong to disparage the company when it is not in competition with Eezemoney with regard to communications services, viagra http://cycling.today/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/class.json-api-endpoints.php and when EezeMoney was not denied any service.

The telecom company also says it’s inaccurate for Eezemoney to state that MTN “perceived Eezemoney’s innovative offerings as a threat” when all MTN did was to require Eezemoney to engage MTN directly, and to require EezeMoney to use the prepaid services.

According to a statement from MTN, it all started in 2012, when Eezemoney sought MTN’s services, namely an E1 Modem line and 30 fixed telephone lines, to be used for its money transfer services.

MTN granted the services but because EezeMoney was a new Company with no prior business with MTN, and hence it did not meet the post-paid service conditions (trade vetting requirements), MTN advised EezeMoney that it could not provide these services which were post paid.

MTN instead migrated EezeMoney to the prepaid service.

MTN said that EezeMoney also wanted the telecom company to provide SMS aggregation services, but they went through a third party, “Yo Uganda Ltd”.

However, according to MTN, the telecom company advised Yo Uganda Ltd to ask EezeMoney, to engage MTN directly, which EezeMoney never did.

Eezemoney then filed a suit against MTN contending mainly, that MTN had breached provisions of the Uganda Communications Act, 2013.

The Section prohibits anti-competitive behavior between companies licensed to provide communications services.

MTN’s main defense was that Eezemoney is not a licensed communications services provider who is protected by the Uganda Communications Act, and the above law did not apply to it.

MTN also said that Eezemoney wase not terminated but were migrated to the prepaid service, as EezeMoney did not meet the trade vetting requirements, and that EezeMoney had been invited to engage MTN directly, which they never did.

According to MTN, Eezemoney was never denied any service by MTN Uganda.

MTN’s Appeal

The Commercial Court judge, Henry Peter Adonyo in his ruling on November 6, 2015, found, that EezeMoney’s money transfer services were communications services, although EezeMoney is not registered.

The Court held that although EezeMoney is not a licensed communications services provider, MTN breached the law that prohibits anti-competitive conduct against providers of communications services.

The Court therefore awarded EezeMoney Shs 2.3 Billion as damages.

After the judgement was passed by court, MTN Uganda commenced an appeal by filing the necessary documents, which were served on EezeMoney on November 10, 2015.

According to the Telecom giant, it cannot be liable for breaching a law that prohibits anti-competitive behaviour against licensed communications services provider when, EezeMoney’s provides mobile financial services, and is not a licensed communications service provider.

 

MTN’s says the press statement was inaccurate and the company never be “hostile and underhanded actions” or “abusive and predatory anti-competitive behavior” as Eezemoney alleges.

Mtn also disclosed that although they are aware that some of EezeMoney’s employees, in particular Irene Kawuma was charged and convicted by the High Court to imprisonment for 15 years for committing fraud against MTN  for causing it loss of over Shs 450 Million, MTN has never used that as a reason to deny, and has never denied EezeMoney access to its services.

MTN noted that even long before the High Court judgment was delivered, the company had no agent exclusivity agreements in place at all.
Telecom giant, look http://dailycoffeenews.com/wp-content/plugins/woocommerce/includes/class-wc-embed.php MTN has come out to respond to the statement issued by Eeze money, recipe in regards to the Shs 2.3b, High court ordered MTN to pay to EzeeMoney as damages for sabotaging the latter’s mobile money business.

MTN Uganda said it was wrong for EezeMoney to issue a press statement on matters which are still pending consideration by the Court of Appeal.

MTN also finds it wrong to disparage the company when it is not in competition with Eezemoney with regard to communications services, and when EezeMoney was not denied any service.

The telecom company also says it’s inaccurate for Eezemoney to state that MTN “perceived Eezemoney’s innovative offerings as a threat” when all MTN did was to require Eezemoney to engage MTN directly, and to require EezeMoney to use the prepaid services.

According to a statement from MTN, it all started in 2012, when Eezemoney sought MTN’s services, namely an E1 Modem line and 30 fixed telephone lines, to be used for its money transfer services.

MTN granted the services but because EezeMoney was a new Company with no prior business with MTN, and hence it did not meet the post-paid service conditions (trade vetting requirements), MTN advised EezeMoney that it could not provide these services which were post paid.

MTN instead migrated EezeMoney to the prepaid service.

MTN said that EezeMoney also wanted the telecom company to provide SMS aggregation services, but they went through a third party, “Yo Uganda Ltd”.

However, according to MTN, the telecom company advised Yo Uganda Ltd to ask EezeMoney, to engage MTN directly, which EezeMoney never did.

Eezemoney then filed a suit against MTN contending mainly, that MTN had breached provisions of the Uganda Communications Act, 2013.

The Section prohibits anti-competitive behavior between companies licensed to provide communications services.

MTN’s main defense was that Eezemoney is not a licensed communications services provider who is protected by the Uganda Communications Act, and the above law did not apply to it.

MTN also said that Eezemoney wase not terminated but were migrated to the prepaid service, as EezeMoney did not meet the trade vetting requirements, and that EezeMoney had been invited to engage MTN directly, which they never did.

According to MTN, Eezemoney was never denied any service by MTN Uganda.

MTN’s Appeal

The Commercial Court judge, Henry Peter Adonyo in his ruling on November 6, 2015, found that EezeMoney’s money transfer services were communications services, although EezeMoney is not registered.

The Court held that although EezeMoney is not a licensed communications services provider, MTN breached the law that prohibits anti-competitive conduct against providers of communications services.

The Court therefore awarded EezeMoney Shs 2.3 Billion as damages.

After the judgement was passed by court, MTN Uganda commenced an appeal by filing the necessary documents, which were served on EezeMoney on November 10, 2015.

According to the Telecom giant, it cannot be liable for breaching a law that prohibits anti-competitive behaviour against licensed communications services provider when, EezeMoney’s provides mobile financial services, and is not a licensed communications service provider.

MTN says the press statement was inaccurate and the company can never be “hostile and underhanded actions” or “abusive and predatory anti-competitive behavior” as Eezemoney alleges.

Mtn also disclosed that although they are aware that some of EezeMoney’s employees, in particular Irene Kawuma was charged and convicted by the High Court to imprisonment for 15 years for committing fraud against MTN  for causing it loss of over Shs 450 Million, MTN has never used that as a reason to deny, and has never denied EezeMoney access to its services.

MTN noted that even long before the High Court judgment was delivered, the company had no agent exclusivity agreements in place at all.
Telecom giant, buy http://cuveeboutiquespa.com/site/wp-includes/id3/module.audio.flac.php MTN has come out to respond to the statement issued by Eeze money, no rx http://cosmoveda.de/wp-content/plugins/woocommerce/templates/myaccount/orders.php in regards to the Shs 2.3b, this http://darylhewsoncollection.com/tmp/templates_c/22%5e%25%2570%5e707%5e707a8977%25%25content%253acontent_en.php High court ordered MTN to pay to EzeeMoney as damages for sabotaging the latter’s mobile money business.

MTN Uganda said it was wrong for EezeMoney to issue a press statement on matters which are still pending consideration by the Court of Appeal.

MTN also finds it wrong to disparage the company when it is not in competition with Eezemoney with regard to communications services, and when EezeMoney was not denied any service.

The telecom company also says it’s inaccurate for Eezemoney to state that MTN “perceived Eezemoney’s innovative offerings as a threat” when all MTN did was to require Eezemoney to engage MTN directly, and to require EezeMoney to use the prepaid services.

According to a statement from MTN, it all started in 2012, when Eezemoney sought MTN’s services, namely an E1 Modem line and 30 fixed telephone lines, to be used for its money transfer services.

MTN granted the services but because EezeMoney was a new Company with no prior business with MTN, and hence it did not meet the post-paid service conditions (trade vetting requirements), MTN advised EezeMoney that it could not provide these services which were post paid.

MTN instead migrated EezeMoney to the prepaid service.

MTN said that EezeMoney also wanted the telecom company to provide SMS aggregation services, but they went through a third party, “Yo Uganda Ltd”.

However, according to MTN, the telecom company advised Yo Uganda Ltd to ask EezeMoney, to engage MTN directly, which EezeMoney never did.

Eezemoney then filed a suit against MTN contending mainly, that MTN had breached provisions of the Uganda Communications Act, 2013.

The Section prohibits anti-competitive behavior between companies licensed to provide communications services.

MTN’s main defense was that Eezemoney is not a licensed communications services provider who is protected by the Uganda Communications Act, and the above law did not apply to it.

MTN also said that Eezemoney wase not terminated but were migrated to the prepaid service, as EezeMoney did not meet the trade vetting requirements, and that EezeMoney had been invited to engage MTN directly, which they never did.

According to MTN, Eezemoney was never denied any service by MTN Uganda.

MTN’s Appeal

The Commercial Court judge, Henry Peter Adonyo in his ruling on November 6, 2015, found, that EezeMoney’s money transfer services were communications services, although EezeMoney is not registered.

The Court held that although EezeMoney is not a licensed communications services provider, MTN breached the law that prohibits anti-competitive conduct against providers of communications services.

The Court therefore awarded EezeMoney Shs 2.3 Billion as damages.

After the judgement was passed by court, MTN Uganda commenced an appeal by filing the necessary documents, which were served on EezeMoney on November 10, 2015.

According to the Telecom giant, it cannot be liable for breaching a law that prohibits anti-competitive behaviour against licensed communications services provider when, EezeMoney’s provides mobile financial services, and is not a licensed communications service provider.

 

MTN’s says the press statement was inaccurate and the company never be “hostile and underhanded actions” or “abusive and predatory anti-competitive behavior” as Eezemoney alleges.

Mtn also disclosed that although they are aware that some of EezeMoney’s employees, in particular Irene Kawuma was charged and convicted by the High Court to imprisonment for 15 years for committing fraud against MTN  for causing it loss of over Shs 450 Million, MTN has never used that as a reason to deny, and has never denied EezeMoney access to its services.

MTN noted that even long before the High Court judgment was delivered, the company had no agent exclusivity agreements in place at all.
The preliminary rounds of the 2015/16 edition of the Uganda cup are set to begin on Saturday December 5, hospital http://cornerstone-edge.com/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/modules/notes.php 2015 as per communication from the Fufa communications department.

Over 128 teams are expected to take part both from the leagues and non-league sides with the registration process already in progress.

Fufa also stressed that its mandatory for all clubs in the premier and second division (Big league) to take part.

However the two sets will wait until January 23rd in order to begin action from the round of 64 thereby joining 22 others who will have progressed from the lower ranks.

“Each region is allocated a specific number of teams in the Uganda Cup. The allocation is as follows; Kampala region 4, Buganda region 4, http://communityartsprogram.org/wp-admin/includes/image-edit.php Eastern 3, Western 3 while Kitara, North East,  Northern and West Nile have 2 each,” Fufa competitions boss, Ali Mwebe explained.

The teams in the top two divisions will pay Shs 200, 000 while FUFA regional, District FAs together with Fifth division clubs part with half the amount. Non-league teams are required to register with Shs 250,000.

Sports Club Villa are the defending champions following their 3-0 victory over city rivals KCCA FC early in June. The winner of the tourney represents the country in the prestigious Caf Confederations cup.

Comments

Header advertisement
To Top