Electricity Tariff: KEDCO Seeks Reconciliation With MAN, Others After Court Judgment

• KEDCO called for a peaceful resolution with MAN and other affected customers following a recent court judgment in its favour
• The company emphasized its commitment to operating under strict regulations and maintaining a customer-centric approach

Following a recent court judgment, the Kano Electricity Distribution Company (KEDCO) has called for a peaceful resolution with the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) and other affected customers. Sani Bala Sani, the spokesman for KEDCO, released a statement inviting all aggrieved parties to engage in dialogue. The company emphasized its commitment to operating under strict regulations and maintaining a customer-centric approach.

Sani highlighted KEDCO’s recognition of the crucial role of manufacturers and its commitment to improving electricity supply and cost efficiency within its franchise area. This appeal for reconciliation comes after KEDCO’s legal victory against MAN, the Nigeria Association of Small-Scale Industrialists (Kano State chapter), and several companies, including Tofa Textile Limited, Dala Foods Nigeria Ltd, Mama Sannu Ind. Ltd, BBY Super Sack Ltd, and Super Sack Company Ltd.

These companies had filed a lawsuit in May 2024, challenging the implementation of the April 2024 Supplementary Order on Band A tariff increase. However, on July 19, 2024, a Federal High Court in Kano dismissed the suit for lack of merit. Justice Simon A. Amobeda resolved the plaintiffs’ concerns about the credibility, validity, and legality of the April 2024 Supplementary Order negatively.

Justice Amobeda affirmed that the supplementary order was validly issued under the Multi-Year Tariff Order (MYTO) 2024 and complied with the relevant provisions of the Electricity Act. The court found no evidence that Band A customers were unfairly treated compared to other categories and upheld the higher tariff for Band A users, who receive more electricity supply per day. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination, unlawfulness, and unconstitutionality were rejected.