Res judicata and electricity arrears: a later suit with different reliefs was not barred, and an auction purchaser was not liable without express supply terms.

A second suit was not barred by res judicata because the earlier injunction suit and the later challenge to disconnection involved different causes of action and different reliefs. An auction purchaser could not be made liable for the previous owner's electricity arrears because such dues do not create a general charge on the premises, and recovery from the purchaser requires an express statutory rule or condition of supply authorising it. On the facts stated, no such enabling provision was shown, so the demand could not be enforced against the purchaser.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second suit was barred by res judicata in view of the dismissal of the earlier suit for permanent injunction. (ii) Whether the auction purchaser could be fastened with the electricity arrears of the previous owner in the absence of a statutory rule or term of supply authorising such recovery.

Issue (i): Whether the second suit was barred by res judicata in view of the dismissal of the earlier suit for permanent injunction.

Analysis: The first suit concerned a prayer to restrain enforcement of the earlier demand notice, whereas the second suit challenged a later notice threatening disconnection and the consequential disconnection. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the two suits was not the same, and the reliefs sought were also different. The earlier dismissal therefore did not operate as a bar.

Conclusion: The second suit was not barred by res judicata.

Issue (ii): Whether the auction purchaser could be fastened with the electricity arrears of the previous owner in the absence of a statutory rule or term of supply authorising such recovery.

Analysis: Electricity arrears do not create a charge on the premises in general law. A transferee or auction purchaser is not liable for the previous owner's dues unless the supplier is armed with a statutory rule or statutory terms and conditions of supply authorising recovery from the purchaser seeking reconnection or a fresh connection. The earlier decision protecting auction purchasers was distinguished where an express supply condition existed, but no such enabling provision was pleaded or shown in the present case when the connection was obtained. The subsequent demand made years later could not therefore be enforced against the purchaser.

Conclusion: The auction purchaser was not liable for the previous owner's electricity arrears on the facts of this case.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's decision failed, as neither res judicata nor the claimed electricity liability of the auction purchaser was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: A purchaser of premises cannot be made liable for the previous owner's electricity arrears unless a statutory rule or statutory condition of supply expressly permits recovery from the purchaser seeking reconnection or a fresh connection; and a later suit is not barred by res judicata where the earlier and later proceedings involve different causes of action and reliefs.

---