By 
Long-distance telecommunications service provider, GeoNet Communications, has faced defeat in its application to review a decision that dismissed its case by the Multimedia Appeals Tribunal. This marks the latest development in a protracted dispute over interconnection with Safaricom.
Justice David Majanja ruled against GeoNet Communications, stating that the company was attempting to re-litigate its appeal in the hope of achieving a different legal outcome.
GeoNet Communications, a subsidiary of GeoNet Communications Group based in the US, had previously moved to the High Court, alleging that the Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) had facilitated anti-competitive behavior by failing to intervene in its dispute with Safaricom and Telkom over interconnection issues.
The company’s appeal before the Tribunal had been dismissed last year, prompting GeoNet Communications to turn to the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal had made mistakes in its understanding of the law, misinterpreted relevant regulations, and consequently reached erroneous conclusions.
In its appeal, GeoNet claimed that the Tribunal had not been properly constituted when rendering its judgment, as it lacked the required technical expertise for the subject matter.
GeoNet alleged that a technical telecommunications expert was absent from the Tribunal at the time of rendering the judgment, which led to a decision made without the necessary technical competence to analyze its technology.
GeoNet Communications asserted that it does not use physical SIM cards, but rather a mobile application called the “GeoSafari App,” which relies on Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and operates on the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) mode of call handling.
The company emphasized that GeoSafari App does not involve the use of SIM cards, making it illogical to accuse them of SIM boxing, a practice that, by definition, involves physical SIM cards.
Furthermore, GeoNet argued that, after obtaining licenses for telecommunications services in Kenya following thorough vetting and approval, it had a legitimate expectation that the CA would not deem the same technology as unlawful.
The company contended that its app represents an innovative, efficient, and cost-effective means of delivering services to Kenyan consumers, allowing them to reduce expenses, particularly roaming costs, and save money.
Comments