Evangelist Alfred Ambe Bassey V. Power Holding Company Of Nigeria (Phcn) & Anor (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Uyo Akwa Ibom State presided over by Olotu J. The judgment was delivered on 19th June 2008. Endorsed on the writ of summons issued on 19th June 2001 is the plaintiff’s claim against the Respondents, hereunder reproduced:

1. “The sum of N100,000.000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) as Special and General Damages for the damage done to the Plaintiff’s property, when the 1st Defendant’s Technician maliciously bridged the Electric lines when reconnecting the 1st Defendant’s Power to the Plaintiff’s building.
2. An order directing Defendants to restore power supply to the Plaintiff’s residence at No 26 Eyotong Street, Oron, Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria.
3. An order directing Defendants to remove live wire disconnected and left hanging in front of Plaintiff’s Residence gate at No 26 Eyotong Street, Oron, Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria.
4. Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents and/or servants from further destruction of the plaintiff’s property by unnecessary and unprovoked tempering with the Plaintiff’s Power supply by disconnecting and reconnecting of the Plaintiff’s residence to the 1st Defendant’s Power source to spite, harass, intimidate and injure the reputation of the Plaintiff.”

Pleadings were filed and exchanged by the parties. The Plaintiff called three witnesses while the defence called only one witness. At the close of the defence’s case on 6/3/07 the Learned Trial Judge ordered written addresses to be filed within given time frames by Learned Counsel for the parties. The written addresses were formally adopted on 26/7/07 and the Court below read its judgment on 18/6/08. In its judgment the Lower Court held, inter alia:

In the peculiar circumstances of this case, I believe that the 1st Defendant should restore light to the Plaintiff’s residence as prayed in paragraph 41 of his statement of claim. Prayer 3 as it relates to the disconnection of the Plaintiff by the Defendant its servant’s privies etc is also granted subject to the following:

1) That the Plaintiff will pay his bills for the light supplied to and consumed by him as at when due from the date he is reconnected.

2) That the injunction is not perpetual or eternal in the sense that its lifespan is limited to the period during which the Defendants can properly reconcile all the Plaintiff’s accounts with them and gives (Sic) him the outstanding bills to settle.

3) The injunction will not apply to the new services rendered to him from the date he is reconnected”. See pages 234-235 of the records.

The Plaintiff disagreed with the aspect of the judgment relating to reconciliation of accounts and appealed on a lone ground reproduced below shorn of its particulars:

“The Learned trial Judge erred in Law by issuing an order of reconciliation of the Appellant’s accounts with the 1st Respondent after holding in her judgment.” In the peculiar circumstances of this case I believe that the 1st Defendant should restore light to the Plaintiff’s residence as prayed in paragraph 41 of his statement of claim.”

From the ground of appeal Learned Counsel for the Appellant framed the following issue for determination in his brief of argument:

“Whether the order of the Lower Court for the reconciliation of the Appellant’s accounts with the 1st Respondent after it had made an order on the 1st Respondent to restore light to the Appellant’s residences occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”

In his own brief of argument Learned Counsel for the Respondents presented the following issue for determination:

“Whether having regards to the pleadings in the matter, the evidence adduced and the findings made the Learned Trial Judge was justified in ordering the reconnection of the Plaintiff’s electric supply subject to a reconciliation of account.

Arguing the lone issue in his brief Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the Pleadings and evidence before the trial Court. He referred to pages 203-204 of the records for the Respondents’ admission that they sent bills to the Appellant even when he was disconnected from power supply. He relied on Udengwu V. Uzuegbu & Ors (2003) 7 NSCR Vol .2 page 180, Atolagbe V. Shorun (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt 2) 360, Adimora V. Ajufo (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt 80) 1 and contended that the order for reconciliation of account should not have been made. He urged the Court to hold that on the basis of the evidence before it the Lower Court’s order for reconciliation of account was perverse, and ought to be set aside.