The High Court has ruled that a dispute between telecommunications firms Telecontract (Pvt) Ltd and Econet Wireless (Pvt) Ltd over the blocking of network traffic must be treated as urgent after Telecontract said the disruptions were causing revenue losses and threatening its business operations.
In a judgment delivered in the Commercial Division in Harare, Justice Joseph Chilimbe dismissed Econet's preliminary objection that the matter was not urgent and ordered that the case be placed on the urgent roll.
"The point in limine fails. The matter is ruled as urgent and must therefore be accorded appropriate prioritisation," the judge ruled.
The dispute involves a 2011 Interconnection Agreement under which Telecontract and Econet exchange voice traffic between their respective telecommunications networks for inbound and outbound call termination.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
Telecontract approached the court seeking an interim order compelling Econet to restore full interconnection services and remove what it described as unauthorised restrictions on its network traffic pending resolution of the dispute by the sector regulator, the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (POTRAZ).
In its urgent application, Telecontract asked the court to order Econet to "restore full, uninterrupted interconnection services" and "remove all unauthorised rate limits imposed on the applicant's traffic."
According to Telecontract's founding affidavit, the relationship between the companies had functioned smoothly for years and generated "material traffic volumes and revenues" for both parties.
However, the dispute arose on January 20, 2026 when Telecontract experienced what it described as a sudden disruption of network traffic.
Investigations conducted by Telecontract indicated that the disruption did not originate from its systems but resulted from a unilateral termination of traffic by Econet.
The company said it immediately logged a fault report with Econet on January 22, 2026, but the problem was not resolved.
Telecontract escalated the matter on January 27, 2026, writing to Econet's Chief Executive Officer, demanding the restoration of services in accordance with the dispute resolution process outlined in the interconnection agreement.
When no response was received, the company referred the matter to the telecommunications regulator on February 2, 2026, but said the regulator had not yet issued a substantive response.
In its court papers, Telecontract said the disruptions were causing significant financial harm.
The company said it was "bleeding revenue" after experiencing a 17 percent collapse in traffic volumes, warning that the situation also posed "the graver threat of customer attrition."
Econet opposed the urgent application, arguing that the matter was not urgent and that the traffic block had been imposed for legitimate reasons.
In an affidavit filed by its General Manager for Business Assurance, Robert Rusike, Econet admitted blocking traffic from Telecontract's network but said the action was necessary to prevent suspected fraudulent activity known as "refilling".
Refilling is a practice in telecommunications where international calls are illegally routed through local networks to avoid higher termination charges.
Econet said such conduct is strictly prohibited under the parties' agreement and justified immediate intervention.
"The first respondent's conduct is lawful and procedural," Rusike said in the affidavit. "The applicant cannot approach the court on an urgent basis to bypass the lawful assessment process done by 1st Respondent in cases where there is refiling."
Rusike further said the blocked traffic had since been cleared, arguing that Telecontract had therefore suffered no irreparable harm.
He added that the company was obliged to continue monitoring network traffic to prevent illicit activities.
"What the applicant ought to do is submit its list and give a commitment that the refiling... That is all required from the applicant," he stated.
Chilimbe found that despite the clearing of some blocked calls, the dispute between the companies remained unresolved.
The judge noted that Econet had indicated it would continue monitoring and potentially restricting traffic where suspicious activity was detected.
"The above excerpt confirms that Econet intends to, and feels justified to sustain the disruptions," the court said.
The court further observed that Econet had not definitively concluded that the blocked calls constituted refilling.
"The blocked calls, though, were subsequently cleared, suggesting that they may not have constituted illicit traffic," the judge said.
The judge said the dispute had effectively reached an impasse, with each party accusing the other of breaching the interconnection agreement.
"Each party formed the firm conviction that the other was in breach of the terms of the ICA," the judge said.
The court also noted that Telecontract had acted promptly after discovering the disruption by engaging Econet and later referring the matter to the regulator before approaching the court.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
"After taking steps to ascertain the cause of the disruptions, it engaged Econet-right up to the latter's CEO... With no firm indication as to when, and what nature of intervention the regulator could issue, Telecontract approached the court," the judge said.
Chilimbe also accepted Telecontract's argument that the dispute involved commercial urgency due to the potential financial and reputational harm arising from network disruptions.
"Whilst Telecontract could have been more elaborate in presenting the commercial urgency, I am satisfied that a proper case for urgency has been made," the court ruled.
The judge emphasised that the current decision only addressed whether the matter should be heard urgently, not the merits of the dispute itself.
"The interpretation of the parties' respective rights is a day two issue for the trial court that will address the matter on the merits," the judge said.
The court ordered that Econet's objection be dismissed and directed the registrar to place the case on the urgent roll, while reserving the question of legal costs for determination in the main proceedings.
