A court orders a Moroccan telecommunications company to compensate a lawyer due to the arbitrary termination of a contract
The Commercial Court in Casablanca has ruled that a Moroccan telecommunications company must pay a fine of 10,000 dirhams after it unilaterally and without prior notice terminated a contract for fixed-line and internet services with a lawyer from the Agadir Bar Association, causing him significant professional and financial damage.
The incident dates back to September 1, 2023, when the lawyer signed a contract with the company to connect his office to the telecommunications network, and a fixed phone number was allocated for this purpose. However, on March 25, 2024, the customer was surprised to find the service suspended without prior warning. When he visited one of the company’s branches for clarification, he was informed that the contract had been terminated due to unpaid bills, despite settling them immediately.
The situation did not end there, as it became clear to the lawyer that the phone number assigned to his office had been given to another customer without notice or any preliminary action like suspending the service temporarily. This prompted him to file a lawsuit, asserting that the disputed number was a vital communication tool for his practice and that losing it harmed the continuity of his professional relationships with clients and institutions he collaborates with.
For its part, the defendant company attempted to argue that the contract terms presented by the plaintiff were unclear, claiming the document did not allow for confirmation of the obligations of both parties and the terms of termination. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that merely having an active contract between the two parties necessitates adherence to the required legal procedures in the event of termination, foremost among them prior notification, which the company failed to comply with.
The court concluded that the termination was carried out arbitrarily and that the company did not provide any documents to refute the plaintiff’s claims, nor did it contest the facts directly. Consequently, the court ordered monetary compensation for the affected party and held the defendant company responsible for court costs.
