BY SAM ALFAN.
Kenya Power has lost it bid to collect hundreds of thousands from a backdated electricity bill.
This is after High Court barred the company from recovering over Sh600,000 from renown curator Alan Donovan, which was part of Sh10.1 billion backdated claims, which were to be recovered from customers.
Justice James Makau barred the power utility company from recovering Sh616,600 from Alan E. Donovan, the founder of African Heritage who challenged the bill saying it was erroneous and based on estimates and not actual meter reading.
“An order is hereby issued that a permanent Injunction directed to the Kenya Power from billing or recovering from the Alan E. Donovan backdated electricity bills based on the Kshs.10.1 billion contained in their Annual Report and Financial statements for the year ending June 30, 2017,” Judge ruled.
In his 38 pages decision, the judge directed the company to Bill Alan E. Donovan based solely on the actual meter readings on the tariffs set and approved by law.
The court further directed Kenya Power to correct or delete all untrue or misleading information in the electricity bills that affects Alan E. Donovan.
The backdated electricity bills were contained in the company’s annual report and financial statements for the year ending June 30, 2017. By the time consumers were moving to court, KP had already recovered Sh2 billion.
A class action suit was filed in court to stop KP from recovering the money but the case was later withdrawn by consent and attempts to revive it was rejected by the High Court.
Donovan accused KP of issuing him erroneous and controversial electricity power bills, yet his complaints went unanswered.
Justice Makau said there is no evidence of existing unpaid bills on monthly basis by Mr Donovan and there was no cogent evidence that has been advanced why such a colossal sum was being demanded as arrears without supportive bills.
The judge found that from the admissions of the Kenya Power, in its letters annexed to Petitioners affidavits that the 1st Respondent in furnishing the Petitioner with estimated bills and not actual metered bills, acted with illegality, irrationality and impropriety of procedure laid down to the abuse of dominance in the supply, backdated billing and demand of electricity payments to the Respondent by the Petitioner.
