Electricity distribution firms sues NERC to court

In an originating summons filed by Oluseye Opasanya (SAN) and Ajibola Oluyede Godson on behalf of the power firms, the DISCOs asked for the determination of the following questions of construction: “Whether, having regard to Sections 24(2)(3), 25, 26(1) and 82(1) of the Electricity Power Sector Reform Act 2005 (EPSRA), Order No. NERC/136 issued or made by the defendant – (declaring a “more competitive electricity market”, within the meaning of the term as used in EPSRA), and/or directing the commencement of the Transitional Stage Electricity Market (TEM Order)- is not ultra vires and therefore null and void.
They also urged the court to determine whether, having regard to Sections 24(2)(3), 25, 26(1) and 82(1) of EPSRA, Supplementary Order No: NERC/15/0011 (Supplementary TEM Order) – (purporting to provide for the effective administration and operation of the Transitional Stage Electricity Market (TEM), or a framework for addressing the operational aspects of the said more competitive electricity market, by the defendant) – is not ultra vires on the powers of NERC, and therefore null and void; or in the alternative:
“Whether, having regard to Section 32(1) (a) & (f), EPSRA and Section 7 of Market Rules (as amended) 2014, the TEM Order and the Supplementary TEM Order are not illegal, and therefore null and void.”
Similarly, the DISCOs asked the court to determine whether, having regard to Sections 83 and 86 of EPSRA, and other conditions precedent required by EPSRA, the TEM Order and the Supplementary TEM Order are not premature and therefore (ineffectual, or unenforceable, if not) null and void.
In their fifth prayer, the electricity firms also want the court to determine whether, having regard to Section 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), NERC’s directive referenced: NERC/MC&R/16/098 dated 30th March, 2016 (Escrow Letter) and the attached Guidelines for Escrowing Collection Accounts of Electricity Distribution Companies in Nigeria (Escrow Guidelines) are not unconstitutional, and therefore null and void.
Whether, having regard to Section 25 of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Act, Cap N117, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, the Escrow Letter and Escrow Guidelines do not constitute unlawful expropriation of the Plaintiffs’ property rights and therefore null and void. 7. (If any of questions one to six above is answered in the affirmative), whether this honourable Court ought not to set aside all directives, actions, decisions and steps taken by the Defendant, (for itself or other persons), on the basis of TEM Order and Supplementary TEM Order, including but not limited to Escrow Letter and Escrow Guidelines.
The plaintiffs therefore sought the following reliefs:
“A declaration that the TEM Order issued by the defendant ultra vires the powers of the defendant, and therefore null and void.
“A declaration that the Supplementary TEM Order issued by the defendant, is ultra vires the powers of the Defendant, and therefore null and void.
“A declaration, (as an alternative to reliefs one and two above), that the conditions prescribed by law for the declaration of TEM have not materialised, as such the TEM Order and Supplementary TEM Order are premature, (ineffectual, or unenforceable, if not), null and void.
“A declaration that the issue or making or implementation of the Escrow Letter and the Escrow Guidelines is unconstitutional having regard to Section 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
They also sought for “an order setting aside all directives, decisions, actions and steps taken by the Defendant, arising or derived from, based on, or relating to, the TEM Order and the Supplementary TEM Order, including but not limited to the Escrow Letter and the Escrow Guidelines,” among others.