Zhongfa Asia Africa Trading as AA Lodges v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Plc (Tribunal Appeal E006 of 2026) [2026] KEET 19 (KLR) (2 July 2026) (Judgment)

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRIBUNAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COUNTY COURT NAME: ENERGY AND PETROLEUM TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: EPA/E006/2026 ZHONGFA ASIA AFRICA TRADING AS AA LODGES VS KENYA POWER AND LIGHTING COMPANY PLC JUDGMENT 1. The Appellant filed a Memorandum of Appeal dated 10th March 2026, against the determination made by the Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority (“EPRA” or “the Authority”) on 22nd December 2025 in Dispute No. EPRA/PEACP/CP/4/65011443/25/JO/pm which had been lodged with the Authority on 30th October 2025. # APPELLANT’S CASE 1. The Appellant contends that the Authority erred in fact and law by failing to properly evaluate the evidence presented, particularly the Respondent’s bills which demonstrated repeated instances of double billing and arbitrary rebilling for months that had already been cleared. 2. The Appellant avers that despite clearing substantial arrears, including payments of KShs. 1,741,491/= and KShs. 609,906/=, the Respondent continued to issue “complementary” or “adjustment” bills without justification. These anomalies were highlighted in the Appellant’s tabulation of bills and correspondence with the Respondent, but were not adequately addressed by the Authority. 3. The Appellant further submits that the Authority failed to consider the provisions of Section 159 of the Energy Act, 2019, which places responsibility on the licensee to ensure accurate metering and billing, and to rectify defective metering without prejudice to the consumer. The Respondent itself attributed the anomalies to defective metering and system transition challenges, yet the burden of these errors was unfairly imposed on the Appellant. 4. The Appellant points to paragraph 33 of the Authority’s ruling, where EPRA acknowledged material inconsistencies in the Respondent’s billing, including a September 2025 computation that referenced a date preceding the bill issue date. The Appellant argues that this acknowledgment confirms the unreliability of the disputed bill and undermines the Authority’s directive requiring settlement in installments. 5. The Appellant maintains that condemning it to pay the disputed bill in six equal monthly installments, while simultaneously recognizing that the bill was inconsistent, not transparent, and not customer-verifiable, amounted to a miscarriage of justice. 6. The Appellant submits that the decision of the Authority was contrary to the weight of evidence on record, misapplied Section 159 of the Energy Act, and failed to protect the Appellant’s consumer rights under Article 46 of the Constitution. 7. The Appellant further contends that the unlawful disconnection of electricity supply in May and October 2025, despite ongoing dispute resolution efforts and payment of current bills, occasioned substantial operational and financial losses. Evidence of fuel costs incurred to sustain operations using generators was tendered, demonstrating the inconvenience and expense suffered. 8. In all the circumstances, the Appellant argues that the Authority failed to render justice and prays that: 9. The Appeal be allowed. 10. The decision of the Authority dated 22nd December 2025 be set aside in its entirety. 11. A declaration be issued that the disputed bill of KShs. 474,768/= is arbitrary, unverifiable, and not due. 12. The disconnection of electricity supply be declared unjustified and unlawful. 13. Damages be awarded for expenses and inconvenience in the sum of KShs. 213,754/=, together with general and exemplary damages. 1. Costs of the Appeal and interest at court rates be awarded. 2. Any further relief deemed just by the Tribunal be granted. # RESPONDENT’S REPLY 1. The Respondent opposes the Appeal and submits that it is incompetent, an abuse of the Tribunal process, and contrary to the statutory framework under the Energy Act, 2019. 2. The Respondent avers that the Appellant is a customer under Account Number 138909098, pursuant to a valid electricity supply contract, and is bound by the Energy Act, 2019, the Energy (Complaints and Dispute Resolution) Regulations, 2012, and applicable EPRA guidelines. 3. The Respondent denies allegations of double billing, maintaining that the disputed charges arose from lawful recovery of unbilled consumption. Between April and May 2024, 20,548 units were captured by the meter but not billed due to a system anomaly. These units were subsequently recovered through a billing adjustment in May 2025 amounting to KShs. 609,906. The Respondent submits that such adjustments reflect actual consumption and not duplication of charges. 4. The Respondent further avers that prior to installation of a smart meter, the Appellant’s premises had accumulated unbilled consumption, resulting in a cumulative bill of KShs. 1,741,491. This arose from historical under-billing, system and meter transition challenges, and subsequent reconciliation of consumption data. Such adjustments are lawful and consistent with regulatory requirements that billing reflect actual consumption. 5. Following installation of a smart meter, data transmission was intermittent due to network challenges in the Maasai Mara region. This necessitated periodic rebilling and manual synchronization to ensure accuracy. The Respondent contends that these processes were undertaken transparently and within acceptable utility practice. 6. The Respondent submits that the Appellant expressly acknowledged the arrears and requested time to settle the same, as evidenced by correspondence dated 29th May 2025. The Respondent argues that a party cannot approbate and reprobate, and having admitted liability, the Appellant cannot now deny the debt. 7. On the legality of disconnections, the Respondent avers that disconnections were carried out strictly in accordance with law, following continued default and issuance of notices. The initial disconnection was effected on 15th May 2025, with subsequent disconnections including that of 22nd October 2025. The Respondent maintains that at all material times, bills were issued, explanations provided, and arrears undisputed at the point of disconnection. 8. The Respondent submits that the Appellant has failed to prove billing error, illegality in disconnection, or breach of statutory duty. The burden of proof rests upon the Appellant, who must prove its case on a balance of probabilities. The claim for damages is unsubstantiated, as no documentary evidence has been tendered to support the alleged losses. 9. The Respondent further argues that granting the reliefs sought would occasion prejudice and undermine public interest in efficient revenue recovery and regulatory certainty. The Respondent is owed KShs. 474,768 in unpaid electricity bills, and allowing the Appeal would unjustly deprive it of lawful revenue and set a dangerous precedent in the energy sector. 10. For these reasons, the Respondent prays that the Tribunal dismiss the Appeal in its entirety, uphold EPRA’s determination dated 22nd December 2025, order the Appellant to settle all outstanding arrears together with interest at court rates, award costs of the Appeal to the Respondent, and grant any other relief deemed just. # ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 1. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, record before the Authority and submissions of both parties, the Tribunal has identified issues for determination to be: 2. Whether the disputed bill of KShs. 474,768/= was lawfully raised and verifiable. 3. Whether the Authority properly applied Section 159 of the Energy Act, 2019 in addressing alleged defective metering and billing inconsistencies. 4. Whether the disconnection of electricity supply was lawful. 5. Whether the Appellant is entitled to the damages and other reliefs sought. # Whether the disputed bill of KShs. 474,768/= was lawfully raised and verifiable 1. The Appellant argues that the disputed bill was arbitrary, duplicative, and unsupported by consumption records, pointing to repeated “complementary” or “rebilling” entries even after arrears had been cleared. The Respondent maintains that the charges represented recovery of unbilled consumption due to system anomalies and meter transition challenges, and that such adjustments are lawful. 1. The Tribunal notes that EPRA itself acknowledged material inconsistencies in the Respondent’s billing, particularly in the September 2025 computation which referenced a date preceding the bill issue date. 2. This acknowledgment undermines the reliability of the disputed bill. While the Respondent is entitled to recover charges for actual consumption, the evidence presented does not demonstrate that the disputed figure of KShs. 474,768/= was transparent, verifiable, or free from duplication. 3. The bill was therefore arbitrary and unenforceable. # Whether the Authority properly applied Section 159 of the Energy Act, 2019 in addressing alleged defective metering and billing inconsistencies 1. Section 159 of the Energy Act, 2019 places responsibility on the licensee to ensure accurate metering and billing, and to rectify defective metering without prejudice to the consumer. The Respondent attributed anomalies to defective metering and system transition, yet the Authority nonetheless directed the Appellant to settle the disputed bill in installments. 2. Where billing anomalies are admitted, the burden of defective metering and billing should not be shifted to the consumer absent clear, independently verifiable evidence of actual consumption. 3. EPRA misapplied this provision by directing the Appellant to pay disputed sums despite admitted anomalies. The Authority’s approach shifted the consequences of defective metering and improper billing onto the consumer, contrary to statute and principles of fairness. # Whether the disconnection of electricity supply was lawful 1. The Respondent contends that disconnections were carried out strictly in accordance with law, following notices and continued default. The Appellant maintains that disconnections were unlawful, given the unresolved billing dispute. 2. Disconnection based on a disputed and internally inconsistent bill cannot be lawful. The disconnections of 15th May 2025 and 22nd October 2025 were therefore premature and unjustified, violating both statutory duty and consumer rights under Article 46 of the Constitution. # Whether the Appellant is entitled to the damages and other reliefs sought 1. The Appellant seeks special damages of KShs. 213,754/= for fuel costs incurred in running generators, as well as general and exemplary damages. The Respondent argues that damages are unsubstantiated. 2. The Tribunal reiterates that special damages must be specifically pleaded and proved for each period claimed. While receipts for February 2026 fuel costs were tendered, the Appellant did not provide comprehensive documentation for the entire disputed period. Accordingly, the claim for special damages fails. 3. The Tribunal accepts that unlawful disconnection and arbitrary billing caused inconvenience and disruption to the Appellant’s hospitality operations. An award of general damages is therefore merited. 4. The billing anomalies, while irregular, did not rise to the threshold of oppressive or high- handed conduct. Consequently, exemplary damages are not justified absent proof of malice or oppressive conduct. # DISPOSITION 1. The Tribunal finds that the Authority erred in law and fact by upholding a disputed bill that was internally inconsistent, not transparent, and not customer-verifiable. The Appellant has discharged its burden on a balance of probabilities. 2. The Tribunal makes the following orders. 3. The Appeal is allowed. 4. The decision of the Authority dated 22nd December 2025 is hereby set aside in its entirety. 5. It is declared that the disputed bill of KShs. 474,768/= issued by the Respondent is arbitrary, unverifiable, and not due from the Appellant. 6. The disconnection of electricity supply on 15th May 2025 and 22nd October 2025 was unjustified and unlawful. 7. The Appellant is awarded general damages of KShs. 300,000 for inconvenience occasioned by unlawful disconnection. 8. The claim for special and exemplary damages is declined for want of proof. 9. The Respondent shall bear the costs of this Appeal. 10. Interest on (e) and (g) above at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full. Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 2nd day of July 2026. ………………………………… Ms. Doris Kinya Mwirigi Vice Chairperson ………………………………. Eng. Buge Hatibu Wasioya Member ………………………………. Mr. Feisal Shariff Ibrahim Member SIGNED BY/FOR: **★ TH E JUDICIAR Y O F KENY A ★** **HON. DORIS KINYA MWIRIGI BUGE HATIBU WASIOYA FEISAL SHARIFF IBRAHIM** ENERGY AND PETROLEUM TRIBUNAL ENERGY AND PETROLEUM TRIBUNAL Date: 2026-07-03 07:24:14