S.A. Amadi & Ors V. Engineer Effiong A. Essien (1993)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

NIKI TOBI, J.C.A. 

The respondent, an Engineer by profession, as plaintiff claimed against the appellants as defendants in the court below, jointly and severally for:

“(A) Payment of One Million Naira by the defendants to the plaintiff for damages for the plaintiff’s generators, wires, metres, plates, as-

sorted drinks, tables, light accessories, and for the confusion, embarrassment, tumults and insults exhibited to the plaintiff’s customers, the entire public and the dispute caused to the plaintiffs restaurants/clubs at No. 13 Obia Oko Street, off NEPA line, Uyo by the defendants on or about February, 1985 to the plaintiff in the eyes of witnesses and Nigerian (sic) Police Officials.

(B) An order for the defendants to immediately install metre and supply electricity to the plaintiff’s restaurant/club at No. 13 Obia Oko Street, off NEPA line, Uyo in which the defendants disconnected unjustifiably and for which the plaintiff’s landlord paid for as and when due”.

The evidence of the respondent is fairly long and complex. I will try to summarise it in ‘scenes’, to present a flowing story. On 6th February, 1985, respondent returned from the hospital where he went to visit his new born baby. A coil of wire blocked his access road to the compound. It is No. 13 Calabar Street, Uyo where he does his business and also lives. He also sighted two technicians of the 6th appellant – one was on a ladder and the other on the main road. He asked a member of his staff, who incidentally is his brother, to remove the coil of wire and he drove into the compound. On getting out of his sports car, he heard his staff and one of the technicians of the 6th appellant exchanging words. The exchange resulted to a fight in which the respondent had a bite on his back from the NEPA technician. There is also a story of an attempt by one of the technicians to use a belt on the respondent’s brother, which was earlier seized by the respondent, but was returned to the owner on the intervention of one Chief Inyang who happened to be present at the material time. Respondent claimed in his evidence that the owner of the belt apologised to him, an apology which resulted in the return of the belt. The respondent identified the two technicians as the 4th and 5th appellants. The above took place on the 6th February, 1985 a date I had earlier mentioned. Let this be the end of scene one.

Now, to Scene two. That was on the 7th February, 1985; the following day.

Respondent, on his way to the Police Station to receive Form C for the bite he had the previous day, called at the office of the 6th appellant. He had a discussion with 5th appellant as to whether the incident of the previous day was reported to the boss. The 5th appellant said he did not. Respondent left for his home. On reaching home, he saw staff of the 6th appellant in three vehicles with the NEPA inscription, chanting NEPA, NEPA, NEPA. The electricity supply to the house was disconnected.

The men cut the overhead cables and the electric wires indiscriminately.

The meters were also not spared. They were carried away. Respondent took photographs of the scene of display. The films and negatives were admitted in evidence. That is the end of scene two.

There was a blackout in the compound. Respondent rushed to the Police Station and reported the incident. Following the report the 1st appellant and a Police Officer visited the premises. After some delay the electricity supply was restored to the premises. Respondent had earlier filed an action in court. After the reconnection of light, he withdrew the matter from the court. He thereafter travelled to Lagos. Let this be the end of scene three.

I now move to the fourth and final scene. On his return from Lagos, respondent experienced a low current and voltage. He decided to mount his generator and this he did with the assistance of a private electrician. Two days after the installation of the generator, respondent noticed naked wires quite close to the metres in the house. In a mistaken belief that the naked wires were the handwork of the appellants, respondent wrote a letter to the 1st appellant, who sent his men to inspect the place. It was later discovered that the private electrician of the respondent was responsible for that. Though it is not apparent from the Record that the fault was regularised, there is every reason to come to that conclusion from the totality of the evidence. Respondent thereafter experienced constant electricity supply until 6th March, 1985, when he returned from Lagos and saw that the premises was again disconnected. It was on the orders of the court below that it was re-connected in January, 1986.

The evidence of the appellants is that the premises of the respondent, a consumer, was disconnected twice for two different reasons. The first was for non-payment of arrears (D.N.P.) and the second for disconnection pending investigation (D.I.P.). The respondent’s line was reconnected on the first occasion in order that the new born baby of the respondent does not “come into the world to witness darkness”. There is also evidence that apart from reporting the matter to the Police, the respondent beat up the 2nd and 4th appellants: the latter admitted in the hospital because of injuries he sustained. The 2nd appellant was even locked up at the instance of the respondent. A private electrician who worked on the line at the instance of the respondent left naked wires. Respondent initially passed the buck to the appellants but later found out that his private electrician was responsible for it. The electrician admitted. Before the admission, the naked wires were one source of disagreement between the parties. As a matter of fact the second disconnection was as a result of what the appellants called the illegal tampering with the installations of the 6th appellant.

After hearing evidence and written submission of counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge gave judgment in favour of the respondent. He was awarded N78, 000.00 special damages and costs of N800.00. The appellants did not like the judgment and so they appealed. As usual, briefs were filed and exchanged by the parties.