National Electric Power Authority v. Mallam Muhammed Auwal (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

On 15-9-2003, the appellant’s officials went to Angwan Mai Gwodo, Zaria on a massive electricity supply lines and wires disconnection exercise and after the exercise left on the ground and on a metal pole loose and uninsulated wires live with electricity current.

After the disconnection, two boys passing by the way at different times the next day were at each electrocuted, fell down and were carried away.

These two near fatal incidents that occurred in the morning of 16-9-2003 were each reported to the officials of the appellant, who, following each report promised to go and rectify the fault but did not go.

At 2pm on 16-9-2003, Muhammed Nazifi, a 10-year-old boy, on his way returning from school stepped on the said naked wires and was instantly electrocuted to death. It was after this unfortunate incident, that following a third report to them that the officials of the appellant came to remove the wires at 2.40pm.

The respondent as the father of the deceased Mohammed Nazifi, demanded that the appellant compensate him for the loss and pain he suffered due to the death of his son as a result of the wrongful act of the officials of the appellant.

Because the appellant refused his demand, the plaintiff on 23-3-2004 bought the suit leading to this appeal by claiming for:

“A declaration that the question of the defendants’ staff, leaving an electrical wire uncovered which consequently caused the death of late Nazifi Muhammed Auwal is a Gross Negligence.

• A declaration that the death of late Muhammed Auwal was the consequences of the defendants’ act(s) and omission(s).
• A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated with damages for the lost, psychological trauma and shock caused the plaintiff by the defendants’ act(s) and omission(s).
• An order directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of N10,000,000.00 (10 Million) being general damages for lost, continuous pain, anguish, shock and continuous psychological trauma caused the plaintiff by the defendants act(s) and omissions(s).”

Following close of pleadings, conclusion of evidence and address by both sides, the trial court on 28-11-2006 delivered final judgment, the concluding part of which read thusly-

“This case is a very tragic one, in that it involves the life of what would have been potentially a bright career of a very young child. It represents a very sad moment for the parents. I have examined the fact of this case, the evidence adduced by both parties and the addresses of counsel, and I agree with them that the three issues they formulated are appropriate for determination in this case.

The issues of negligence, which learned counsel for the defendant vehemently denied, relying on the testimonies of the defence witnesses. I must however straightaway state that I cannot prefer the evidence of the defence to that of the plaintiffs. Their testimonies in all material particular are against the basic grain of truth. The basic fact in this case which the defendants have not denied was that Nazifi Muhammed Auwal died on the 16th day of September, 2003, by electrocution.

The time of the death was put at 2.00pm. Exhibit A, the medical certificate which was admitted in evidence with consent attributes the cause of death to shock as a direct cause, while electrocution is said to be an antecedent cause. Exhibit B the police report also indicates the cause of death.

Exhibit C which was a reply to the solicitor, it was admitted that after a disconnection having left U/Maigodo, a report of fault was filed at the fault reporting center by PW2 that there was an LT Pole and stay that were shocking and at 2.40pm of 16th September, 2003, the fault was cleared by the defendant’s men on duty in the area.If the defendants admit that the pole and stay were shocking and they went to clear at 2.40pm, what explanation do they have concerning an incident that took place at 2.00pm? It could not be their case that it was after the clearing of the fault that the incident took place.

I find the testimony of DW1, DW2 and DW3 as heartlessly false and I cannot but be appalled by their clear loss of conscience as to stand before the court to testify, lying that they were not aware of the death of Nazifi Muhammed. It is a fact from the circumstances of it to be patently notorious.