Facts:

The Claimant via a Writ of Summon and Statement of Claim instituted an action against the Defendant, for certain declaratory reliefs and injunction against the Defendant.

The Claimant stated that he is a pre-paid customer of the Defendant with Account Number 994523253801 and Meter No. 04181832893 at his house at Plot 1251 Cadastral Zone B7 Katampe, Abuja, and that In line with the Defendant’s responsibility, officials of the Defendant from its Gwarinpa Area Office usually carry out monthly and routine inspections of his pre-paid meter without any obstruction whatsoever to ascertain its working condition in its premises. Between March and April 2016, officials of the Defendant came to his house for their routine inspection and removed and took away his prepaid meter to their office and only returned it the following day without any explanation. That upon his enquiry, the Defendant’s staff who returned his meter the next day informed him that they removed and took away the pre-paid meter to their office as part of their routine maintenance and inspection and had found it to be in good working condition. The Claimant alleged that on or about 30/11/16, and for the 1st time ever, agents of the Defendant alleged that his pre-paid meter was faulty (bad) since May 2016. This resulted in a serious argument among the agents in his presence considering that the same servants of the Defendant who had earlier attested to its good working condition were now alleging fault since May 2016 in spite of the fact that they had always carried out their routine checks and inspection without detecting any fault of manipulation of the same meter. That in the course of the said argument, one Joy Maduagwu agent of the Defendant produced a letter headed paper of the Defendant from her bag and issued a handwritten bill in the sum of N1,418,438.56 as approximated cost of his electricity consumption between May and November 2016 which she instantly and unilaterally assessed at the site of 6,450.38 units monthly totalling 38,702.28 units for six months. He instantly protested the issuance and the basis of the said calculation of the said handwritten bill to agents of the Defendant but rather than seek to effect proper reconciliation of account, the said Joy Maduagwu threatened to disconnect his electricity supply if he did not settle the said bill in full within 7 days. Shortly after this incident, the Claimant had travelled to Ilorin, Kwara State and did not return to Abuja until sometime in January 2017. Upon his return, he was informed by his security guard that the Defendant had visited the premises multiple times and threatened to disconnect the Claimant. On this note, the Claimant instructed his counsel to write a formal protest to the Defendant on the said incident and particularly on the bill mentioned in this matter. The Calimant alleged further that on the 20th of January 2017, the Defendant scaled through his fence wall into the premises and disconnected his electricity supply from the pole inside the premises, and since the aforesaid disconnection on 20/01/17, he has been subjected to the use of his Mikano Diesel Generator for electricity or light supply at a huge cost on a daily basis and has thereby incurred losses and suffered special damages.

The Defendant by way of reply through its Statement of Defence denied ever doing a routine inspection on the Claimant’s prepaid meters, and that the Claimant had always prevented entrance into the said premises which as a result frustrated them from carrying out their assignment of effective monitoring and inspection of his pre-paid meter. That its officials neither removed nor took away the Claimant’s pre¬paid meter at any point in time since its installation particularly between the months of March and April 2016 as same is not the mode of operation of the Defendant in its routine maintenance and inspection. The Defendant through its team lead, Customer Service stated that sometimes in November 2016, the Defendant’s officials headed by her in their routine maintenance and inspection activities discovered that the seal of the pre-paid meter was broken and tampered with surreptitiously by the Claimant which affected its effective performance viz by slowing down the reading of energy consumption thus the pre-paid meter was read and track energy consumed appropriately and accurately and that following the discovery above, she informed the Claimant of her findings and in his presence used an instrument called “clap on” to pick the load reading in order to ascertain the quantum of energy being consumed at that material time. She calculated and charged the Claimant for the amount undercharged for electricity consumed for a period of 6 months in line with Nigeria Electricity Regulatory Commissions Meter Reading, Billing, Cash Collections and Credit Management for Electricity Supplies Regulation 2007. The Claimant was billed a cumulative sum of N1,418,438.56. Defendant also denied scaling through the fence of the Claimant and counterclaimed for the above sum.

Upon consideration of arguments put forth by the parties, the Claimant’s claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim succeeded in parts.