ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF GHANA vs. NANA PAUL KWAME BOATENG [2012]DLCA3122

Date	2012-06-01
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/50/2011
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA3122

MARIAMA OWUSU (MISS) J.A. (PRESIDING)

F.G. KORBIEH J.A.

IRENE C. DANQUAH (MS.) J.A.

[2012]DLCA3122
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >ELECTRICITY COMPANY OF
GHANA<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA PAUL KWAME BOATENG<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/50/2011&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATED: 1ST JUNE, 2012<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>MARIAMA OWUSU (MISS) J.A. (PRESIDING),
F.G. KORBIEH J.A., IRENE C. DANQUAH (MS.) J.A.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>F.G. KORBIEH, J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff/respondent in this appeal (who shall hereinafter be referred to only
as the plaintiff) was at all material times the customer of the
defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to only as the defendant or defendant
company). On the 30/5/2007 an employee or agent of the defendant company went
to the plaintiff’s house (No. Plot 3 Block 2, Ayigya, Kumasi) and proceeded to
disconnect the electricity supply to the said house with the excuse that the
plaintiff was in arrears of the payment of his electricity bill and thus owed
the defendant company. As pleaded by the plaintiff in his statement of claim,
an employee of the plaintiff who was in the house at the time of the
disconnection exercise informed the employee of the defendant company that the
plaintiff had actually paid his bill and that if he waited a bit longer she
would produce evidence of the payment. The employee of the defendant company
nevertheless went ahead and disconnected the electricity supply to the house.
According to the plaintiff the exercise attracted many people in the neighborhood
to his house and thus caused him a lot of embarrassment as he is an aspirant to
the Asokore Stool and the exercise ‘was deliberate, actuated by malice and
without any lawful justification.’ The plaintiff further averred that
perishable goods, including drugs, that were in the fridge in his house got
damaged and/or were destroyed as a result of the disconnection. It was the
plaintiff’s further allegation that this was the second time the defendant had
wrongfully and illegally disconnected the electricity supply to his house and
that the first time he had sued the defendant in the High Court, Kumasi but the
case had been settled out of court. On these allegations of fact therefore the
plaintiff sued the defendant in the High Court, Kumasi claiming from it special
damages of ₵20,300,000.00
for the wrongful and illegal disconnection of electricity supply to his
afore-mentioned house. The particulars of the special damages were given as ₵20,000,000.00 for perishable goods
(including drugs) damaged and ₵300,000.00 as expenses incurred before the electricity
supply was reconnected.<o:p></o:p>In
reaction to the plaintiff’s claim against it the defendant denied that it was
liable to pay any claim to the plaintiff. It denied all the material
allegations of fact made by the plaintiff save those that were expressly, or by
necessary implication, admitted. It averred that in May 2007 it undertook
disconnection exercises throughout the country as it was running its business
at an extremely high cost because of the rising price of oil in the world
market whilst most of its customers were in arrears of the payment of their
electricity bills. The defendant further averred that as a result of the
exercise, it had informed all its customers through the media (among others) to
leave their payment receipts behind when leaving their premises ‘as not all
payments made by customers can be captured instantly’ and that the plaintiff
was aware of its policy that customers were expected to leave their payment
receipts in their respective premises for verification in the case of
disconnection exercises. It also averred that the plaintiff could not produce
any receipt of payment at the time of the disconnection exercise and further
that the plaintiff did not leave his payment receipt behind although the
plaintiff knew, from a similar situation previously, that he was required to
leave his receipt behind. The defendant also averred that when the payment
receipt was produced later by the plaintiff, the electricity supply was
immediately reconnected to the house since the defendant’s officers were still
operating within the plaintiff’s area.<o:p></o:p>In
his reply the plaintiff opined that it did not lie in the mouth of the
defendant to blame its inefficiencies and in competencies in monitoring its
customers on the plaintiff and that it was not the responsibility of customers
to assist the defendant to keep an up-to-date record of customers who had paid
their bills or not. He further opined that the production of the payment
receipt later on was not an act to correct any wrong-doing on his part but only
meant to establish prima facie there and then the wrongfulness of disconnection
his electricity supply. At the close of pleadings the issues set down for trial
were as: <o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Whether
or not the defendant’s act of disconnecting electricity to the plaintiff’s
house on the 30/5/2007 was wrongful.<o:p></o:p>