NERC appeals judgment over hike in electricity tariffs
NERC in the appeal before Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos, by
its counsel, Chief Anthony Idigbe, SAN, is
seeking an order staying execution pending the hearing and determination of the
appeal.
The suit at the lower court had as defendants, NERC and 13
DISCOs, while the plaintiff was a lawyer, Toluwani Adebiyi,
The appellant in the appeal, is contending that the lower
court erred in law when the court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain
the 1st respondent's originating summons, when the processes were incompetent
and refused to decline jurisdiction to entertain the 1st respondent's
originating summons when it was clear that the action was statute barred,
having been brought outside the statutory period prescribed under S 2(a) of the
Public Officers Protection Act, Cap P41, LFN, 2004.
It is further contending that the trial judge erred in law
and deprived the appellant of its constitutional right to fair hearing when he suo motu raised in its judgment issue of
compliance of the appellant's counter affidavit with provision of the Evidence
Act, admissibility of newspaper publication and granting relief to the 1st respondent
not sought without first giving the parties opportunity to address him on the
issues raised suo motu.
*The trial judge erred in law when he held that the 1st respondent
is allowed to approach the court without exhausting the appellant's internal
dispute resolution mechanism pursuant to Section 45 and 50 of the Electricity
Power Sector Reform Act 2005 (EPSRA) because of the use of the word
"may" in S50 (1) of the EPSRA 2005 when the clear intendment of the
Act was establishment of condition precedents to exercise of jurisdiction by
the Federal High Court.
*The trial judge erred in law when he held that appellant
did not comply with the provision of Section 76 of the Electricity Power Sector
Reform Act 2005 (EPSRA) in preparing its tariff methodology.
*The learned trial judge erred in law when he placed the
burden of proof of non compliance with the Appellant rather than the 1st
Respondent.
*The trial judge misdirected himself in law in relying on
facts and affidavits occurring after the findings of the originating summons
and which did not form a part of the Originating Summons argued before the
learned trial judge in deciding the substantive relief before the court.
*The trial judge erred in law in holding that the 1st respondent
had locus standi to institute the action when from the reliefs sought no
personal rights of the 1st respondent was put in issue.
*The relief sought by the 1st respondent did not raise any
issue for determination of the rights or
liabilities of the 1st Respondent; the relief sought did not raise any reasonable
cause of action; the reliefs sought were incapable of execution.
*The reliefs sought will point the court in a position of
exercising executive powers vested only in the executive arm of government
under the constitution.
In an affidavit in
support of the motion for the stay of execution, deposed to by Martins Nwankwo,
NERC averred that ‘refusal to grant this
application will result in devastating consequences for the nation and indeed
the entire electricity consumers in Nigeria as investment in power sector which
encourages healthy competition will be discouraged. In the same vein, the
entire electricity generation and distribution stands the risk of total
collapse in view of the recent devastation caused by vandalization of power
installations with its attendant decrease in power generation and distribution.
‘If this application is not favourably considered, there is
a high likelihood that the citizens of the country will be subjected to total
blackout while business and investments will be drastically affected.
“We submit that any attempt to further subject the masses to
further hardship will be setting the stage for chaos and anarchy in the
society, which effect may be overwhelming.”
Comments
Post a Comment