A federal High Court in Kano has dismissed the application by seven entities, praying it to set aside the April 2024 Supplementary Order for Kano Electricity Distribution Company Plc (KEDCO), issued by the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), which reviewed the tariff methodology for Band A users.
The seven plaintiffs are Super Sack Company Limited; BBY Super Sack Limited; Mama Sannu Industries Ltd.; Dala Foods Nigeria Limited, Tofa Textile Limited; Manufacturers Association of Nigeria Co. Limited/Gte and Nigerian Association of Small Scale Industrialists, Kano State Chapter.
The NERC and KEDCO were the first and second defendants, respectively in the suit. The defendants through their lead counsel, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), representing the 1st to 6th defendants; and Shehu Muhammad Yakubu for the 7th defendant, had prayed the court to declare that having regards to Sections 34 (1) and 116(2)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2023 the April 2024 Supplementary Order to the Multi-Year Tariff Order-2024 for KEDCO issued by the 1st defendant, which reviewed the tariff methodology exclusively for Band A users is discriminatory, unconstitutional, illegal, null and void.
They also prayed the court for an order, restraining the defendants either directly or through their agents or officers from giving effect to the April 2024 Supplementary Order or any other increase in tariff, among other prayers.
But lead counsel for the 1st defendant, Harry Ukaejiofor and P.A . Attabor for the 2nd defendant opposed the application and argued against the prayers. After listening to all parties, the trial judge, Simon Amobeda delivered judgment on July 19, 2024, dismissing the application for lacking in merit.
His words: “A calm examination of the uncontroverted averments of the 1st defendant clearly shows that the upward review of electricity tariffs for Band A users is reasonably justifiable, and therefore cannot by itself be said to be discriminatory.
“For the upward review of electricity tariffs for Band A users to be held to be discriminatory, there must be cogent and credible evidence of such discrimination.
“In the instant case, apart from the bare averment of the plaintiffs in their affidavits, there is nothing before this court to establish the allegation of discrimination made by the plaintiffs against the 1st defendant’s April 2024 Supplementary Order now sought to be invalidated.”
The judge held that plaintiffs did not produce any cogent, credible and convincing evidence to show that Band A users of electricity were treated in a worse way than the way other categories of users were treated under the April 2024 Supplementary Order of the 1st defendant. He, therefore, declared that the April 2024 Supplementary Order for Kano Electricity was not discriminatory, and so, lawful and constitutional.
“The arguments of the plaintiffs in support of this issue are therefore erroneous, and they are accordingly discountenanced. Consequently, this issue is resolved in the negative against the plaintiffs. I so hold.
“From the foregoing, the three questions endorsed on plaintiffs’ originating summons are resolved in the negative, and against the plaintiffs.
“Thus, the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs are therefore not grantable, as the plaintiffs have failed woefully to establish by cogent, credible and convincing evidence, their entitlement to the reliefs claimed in this suit.
“Accordingly, all the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in this suit are refused. To this end, the plaintiffs’ suit fails for lack of merit, and the same is hereby dismissed, without any cost. That shall be the judgment of this court,” Justice Amobeda declared.
