Month: January 2024

The Electric Power Sector Reform Act 2005 (EPSRA) is the primary legislation guiding the Nigerian power sector. The Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), established by EPSRA, has the authority to create regulations for the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry (NESI). One such regulation is the Connection and Disconnection Procedures 2007 (NERC Connection Regulations).

According to Section 5 of NERC Connection Regulations, a Distribution Company (Disco) is permitted to disconnect a customer only if the customer has not paid the correct amount billed for the supply address by the specified payment date. The section outlines prerequisites for disconnection, including a clear payment date on the bill, a minimum of 10 working days from bill delivery to the payment date, and a three-month period between the payment date and disconnection. Importantly, the Disco must verify from its records that the bill remains unpaid, provide a written warning to the customer before disconnection, and include details such as the warning date, supply address, and contact information for assistance with bill payment.

In Kalgo v Hussaini & Anor, (2019) LPELR-47248(CA), in that case, the 1st Respondent, accompanied by personnel of the 2nd Respondent, Kaduna Electricity Distribution Company PLC (Kadeco), disconnected the Appellant’s electricity supply from August 26 to August 29, 2016. The Appellant contested this action, asserting its illegality and violation of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Regulations, 2007. The Appellant also claimed discrimination, alleging that the 1st Respondent disconnected their residence while leaving others connected, even those who hadn’t settled their August 2016 bills.

Despite the Appellant’s multiple correspondences to the Respondents, demanding compliance with the Nigerian Electricity Commission’s Regulations, 2007, and receiving no response, the Appellant sought judicial review through the Court below. The Appellant pursued declaratory reliefs, damages of ₦11,000,000.00 against the Respondents, and an Order of Mandamus compelling the 2nd Respondent to adhere strictly to Sections 5 & 9 of NERC’S Procedures & Rules, 2007. The Appellant’s contention was centered on being disconnected without the mandatory three-month pre-disconnection notice, contrary to the provisions of Section 5 (i) (d), (e) & (f) and Section 9 of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Connection & Disconnection procedures for Electricity Services, 2007 (NERC Rules).

Justice Oziakpono JCA reversed the high court’s decision, disagreeing with its interpretation. Oziakpono JCA argued that having a debt or unpaid bills doesn’t automatically cancel the protection, specifically the notice, granted to the customer by Sections 5(1)(d)(e) and (f) of the NERC’s Connection and Disconnection Procedures for Electricity Services, 2007. Therefore, the disconnection was deemed illegal, and the appellant was granted damages.

In his words, the Justice held that: “The provisos no doubt carry a number of safeguards, which must be complied with before the Respondents could lawfully so to speak, go on a frenzy of disconnecting customers’ electricity supply to their homes. This Court has noted with clear disappointment that the production and distribution of Electricity supply in this Country has, for over time, fallen on evil days. A situation where the distributors of Electricity would brazenly flout the Regulations governing their activities in the midst of persistent and perennial epileptic supply of Electricity to homes and institutions is clearly unacceptable.“

Nevertheless, there are situations where a customer’s electricity can be cut off without prior notice. These include:
1. If a customer is illegally connected to the DisCo’s network, the company has the authority to disconnect the power supply without giving notice. (Have you done this before? Lol)

2. If a customer’s installation is considered hazardous to the DisCo’s network or could affect the quality of supply to other customers, it is justified to disconnect the electricity supply without prior warning.

3. Also if a consumer attempts to outsmart the DisCo by hiding his meter, the electricity supply could be disconnected. Section 6(3) specifies that if, due to the customer’s actions or omissions, a meter in the customer’s premises goes unread for three consecutive times, the respective DisCo has the authority to disconnect the power supply. However, there are conditions outlined in proviso of section 6. The DisCo can only proceed with disconnection after informing the customer about the meter’s inaccessibility through written notice or telephone contact. This notification should request the customer to arrange for meter access. Additionally, the regulation mandates the DisCo to issue a warning notice to the customer, stating that unless access is granted within a minimum of 10 working days, electricity will be disconnected.

Nevertheless, in a 2021 Court of Appeal of Kaduna Electricity Distribution Co PLC v Raji (2021) LPELR-58347(CA), that Court disturbed the settled principle of law by holding that notice is not needed before disconnection. The court per Affen JCA held that: “This provision of Section 9 of the NERC Rules seems to me quite plain: it does not require a distribution company (such as the Appellant) to give notice to its customers as a precondition for disconnecting electricity supply. The obligation to leave notice of disconnection arises when, and only when, the distribution company disconnects electricity supply, but not prior to disconnection as held, erroneously, by the lower Court”

For emphasis, section 9 states that whenever a distribution company disconnects electricity supply to a customer’s premises, the distribution company shall leave a written notice of disconnection advising the customer the following: (a) date and time of disconnection; (b) reason for disconnection; (c) action to be taken by the customer to have the electricity supply reconnected; and (d) contact address and telephone number of the distribution company.

It’s my opinion that the court erred in law. This is because section 9 only takes effect after the disconnection, not before. The headline of the section in the act reads: “Notice that electricity has been disconnected.“

As such, the principle of law still remains that notice must be given before disconnection can take effect.

We have a work to do. JCI2024 award is here. Can you nominate Kikiowo’s LSP for the category of *SELFLESS CONTRIBUTION to a worthy cause*

How to nominate:

👉🏻Click on the link https://bit.ly/FOPA2024Nomination

👉🏻Put in your email address

👉🏻 Go to the 3rd page (Selfless Contribution) and fill the following:
Name: The Legal StandPoint
Alias: LSP
Department and level: Law 500 level
The reason: write something true on how LSP has been beneficial to the community.

If you don’t have anybody else to nominate for other categories, click on the NEXT option till the last page and submit.


Thank you.

This week’s article addresses whether property forfeiture can occur without a conviction for an offense.

Forfeiture is the loss of certain rights, privileges, property, or honors as a consequence of committing an offense, crime, violation of conditions, or other wrongful acts. In Bokinni v Olaleye (1994) LPELR-22960(CA). and A-G Bendel State v Agbofodoh (1999) 2 NWLR (PT. 592) 476 the courts defined forfeiture as the relinquishment of something due to the commission of a crime, akin to a penalty or fine paid to expiate the wrongdoing.

Embezzlement often precedes forfeiture. When a government official misuses public money, the EFCC in Nigeria is responsible for taking legal action to recover the assets. The main law guiding this process is the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006. According to Section 17(3) of this law, the request for an interim forfeiture order should be made without involving the other party (ex parte). To obtain this order, the applicant only needs to provide enough initial evidence that the property might be linked to illegal activities or a crime and could eventually be taken away.

At this juncture, the case of Alison Madueke v. E.F.C.C (2024) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1918) 101 comes in handy. In that case, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) accessed the appellant’s residence, recovering jewelry worth about $40 million. The EFCC then obtained an interim forfeiture order from the Federal High Court based on evidence suggesting the jewelry’s value exceeded the appellant’s legitimate income during her time as Minister of Petroleum Resources. The appellant argued that the jewelry were gifts received during her service, spanning nearly 50 years. However, the trial court, unconvinced, ordered the final forfeiture of the jewelry to the Federal Government of Nigeria. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

In this case, the trial court, by granting the ex parte application for interim forfeiture, acknowledged that the respondent had made a strong case for seizing the jewelry under the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act. This shifted the burden to the appellant to explain why a final forfeiture order shouldn’t be issued. The appellant had to prove, on a balance of probability, how she obtained the jewelry. The law places the burden on her since this information is within her knowledge, as stated in Section 140 of the Evidence Act and Section 36(5) of the Constitution.

The Court held that there is no need to prove any crime in forfeiture of property under Section 17 of the Act , as civil forfeiture is a unique remedy that rests on the legal fiction that the property, not the owner, is the target. Therefore, it does not require a conviction or even a criminal charge against the owner as it is not a punishment nor is it for criminal purposes.

The rationale behind this is that civil forfeiture proceedings are intended to cause the forfeiture of proceeds of unlawful activity and are targeted at the property, not the person, thus constituting in rem proceedings, not in personam proceedings. Oti v. EFCC (2020) 14 NWLR (P1743) 48.

In simple terms, sometimes if something valuable, like a house or money, seems to be connected to a possible wrongdoing, the law allows authorities to take it away temporarily. They don’t have to prove someone did something wrong; it’s just a precaution. This rule focuses on the thing itself, not necessarily the person who owns it. So, even if there’s no proof someone committed a crime, the authorities can still take away the valuable thing to make sure everything is okay.

In the case of Dame Patience Ibifaka Jonathan v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (supra) (2019) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1681) 533, the Supreme Court held that the Court has the power to make an order of forfeiture of unclaimed property or proceeds of unlawful activity without conviction for any offense.

In conclusion, the principle of law is that a property forfeiture action doesn’t require the conviction of an offense. The reasoning behind this is that it operates as an action against the property itself (in rem) rather than being dependent on the conviction of an individual.

Thank you for reading. See you next week

When students complete their studies, it’s the university’s senate that awards degrees, based on character and learning criteria outlined in the regulatory handbook. The Courts typically don’t intervene in this process.

So the fundamental legal principle here is that a court cannot intervene and force a university to grant a degree to a student. The exclusive authority for determining a student’s fitness in character and learning, as well as their eligibility for a degree, lies with the university’s senate, not the court. The regulatory handbooks of schools or faculties typically outline the criteria for character evaluation.

In University of Ilorin v Akinrogunde (2001) 3 NWLR (PT. 755) 626 at 646 PARA B-C, the court held as follows: “We must not lose sight of the fact that the University exist to train future responsible leaders of our great nation and that one of the conditions which they must fulfill before being presented as graduates is that they must be found worthy in learning and character. Therefore, if the character of a student is doubtful due to his arrest and prosecution by relevant agencies it is only reasonable for the University authorities to play safe by taking the necessary steps under the enabling enactment to save guard its reputation by not graduating a student who is later convicted and sentenced by a Court of competent jurisdiction or graduating an ex-convict.”

Similarly in Magit v University of Agriculture, Makurdi (2005) 19 NWLR (PT. 959) 211 at 245 PARA B-E where the Supreme Court held thus: “That in so far as the award of a degree or certificate to a student is concerned, in the discretion to award or refuse to award, the Courts have no jurisdiction in the matter. The Courts have no business flirting into the arena of a University deciding whether a thesis has met the standard of which it has been set. Any attempt by any Court, including this Court to dabble or encroach into the purely administrative and domestic affairs of a University including that of the 1st Respondent that may lead to undue interference nay, the weakening inadvertently so to speak of the powers and authority conferred on the Universities by statute as that conferred on the 1st Respondent will not be justifiable or justified.”

However, in ABU v Obanla (2021) LPELR-55101(CA), the court considered the circumstance(s) in which a Court can interfere with the domestic affairs of a University. In that case, Rashidat Suleiman Obanla, a former student of Ahmadu Bello University, graduated in Mathematics in 2012/2013. The Mathematics Department confirmed her graduation, but upon attempting to collect her certificate, she was informed of her expulsion in 2012 due to alleged cheating during an exam. The expulsion occurred without allowing her to explain, and she only discovered it when checking her results. Despite re-taking and passing the disputed course, completing her studies, and obtaining clearance, the university refused to issue her a graduation certificate, citing the prior expulsion. The respondent appealed to the Vice Chancellor but was unsuccessful. The university maintained she violated her Matriculation Oath, and the Mathematics Department was not informed of her expulsion by the Senate Standing Committee.


The court ruled that, since exam malpractice was alleged, it was the court’s responsibility, not the university’s, to determine whether the respondent was guilty or innocent. The court held that the university exceeded its authority by declaring the respondent guilty without legal proceedings. Talba JCA pointed out that the respondent was not arrested, prosecuted, or convicted by a competent court. The university, instead, assumed the court’s role by pronouncing guilt after an internal investigation, violating constitutional duties. Referring to Sofekun v. Akinyemi & Ors (1980) 5-7 SC 1 at 26, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding the court’s authority against interference to ensure fairness and protection against arbitrariness and oppression.


Given the evidence presented (Exhibit F) and the fact that the respondent was never arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced by a competent court, the court would be neglecting its constitutional duty if it doesn’t instruct the university to issue the degree certificate to the respondent.

Hence, the appellant’s argument that academic matters and degree awards fall exclusively under the university’s senate doesn’t hold in this case. This applies only when there is no allegation of a crime committed by a student. In instances involving alleged crimes, the university’s senate should permit relevant agencies to handle arrests and prosecutions in court, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Until this legal process is completed, the student should be presumed innocent by all authorities, including the university’s senate, as stipulated in Section 36(5) of the CFRN 1999 (as amended)

Thank you for reading. See you next week.