Facts:

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Plateau State (trial Court) delivered by P.D. Damulak, J.

The Respondent (Plaintiff) via an Originating Motion sought the following reliefs against the Appellant (Defendant):

1. AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS compelling the Defendant/ Respondent to reconnect the house of the Plaintiff with electricity light for being financially up to date in payment of his electricity prepayment credit.

2. AN ORDER declaring the failure on the part of the Defendant/ Respondent to adhere to laid down procedures as provided under the regulations of the National Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) setting down the mode for disconnecting a defaulter in disconnecting the electricity light of the Plaintiff-Respondent as illegal.

3. AN ORDER directing the Defendant/Respondent to refund the cost incurred by the Plaintiff/Applicant in prosecuting this application which stands at the sum of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (N150,000.00) only.

4. AN ORDER directing the Defendant/Respondent to foot damages of Ten Million Naira (N10,000,000.00) for unwarranted and unlawful disconnection of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s house from the service grid which was carried out despite the fact that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s subscription subsists thus not only limiting his person and standing in the society but constitute an infringement of his right to enjoy light and thus, endanger the life of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s and his family which cannot be quantified by monitory (sic) value.

5. A MANDATORY ORDER commanding the Defendant/ Respondent to deliver an apology in writing to the Plaintiff/ Applicant for the unwarranted and continued disconnection without recourse to the laid down procedure.

The grievance of the Respondent at the trial Court was premeditated on the fact the Appellant had unceremoniously disconnected him, and without an explanation, despite the fact that he was financially up to date in the payment of his electricity prepayment credit.

Upon service of the Originating Summons on the Appellant, the Appellant filed a preliminary objection on the ground that the trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the Respondent’s motion nor to grant the order of mandamus, due to the fact that it (the Appellant) is a private enterprise, and the relationship that exists between it and the Respondent is strictly contractual.

The preliminary objection was taken with the originating motion, and the learned trial Judge dismissed the Preliminary Objection of the Appellant; whilst he entered judgment in favour of the Respondent.

Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.