The registered account holder remains liable for electricity charges despite tenancy agreements.

[1] The appeal before this Court had arisen from the decision of the Magistrates' Court on 5 June 2024 which, after full trial, found that the Respondent had proven its case on a balance of probabilities. Pursuant to its findings, the Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent RM14,962.78 in unpaid electricity charges. After hearing the arguments by both parties at the appeal, this Court dismissed the Appellant's appeal on 13 November 2024.

[2] The Magistrates Court 's decision was therefore affirmed and costs for the appeal was awarded to the Respondent in the sum of RM10,000.00.

[3] On 18 December 2024 this Court was informed that the Appellant wished to appeal against this Court 's said decision on 13 November 2024 to the Court of Appeal. Before stating this Court 's reasoned decision, the Magistrates' Court 's findings are captured below. They would proceed to show why this Court had not exercised its appellate intervention as the Magistrates' Court 's rulings were not plainly wrong.

The Magistrates' Court 's Findings

[4] The Appellant was proven to be the registered user of electricity for the account no 220026323108 during the material period. The bills for the electricity supplied by the Respondent to the Appellant was shown to be consisted with her said account number and premises' address (A-07-07 Tropicana Avenue, Persiaran Tropicana, Tropicana Golf & Country Resort, 47410 Petaling Jaya Selangor). Even though there was evidence that the premises was rented out, the Magistrates' Court held that the registered user remained liable for electricity charges. The Appellant was the Respondent's registered customer at all material times via contract number 245957 (the contract) under account number 220026323108 (the account). Therefore, the Magistrates' Court found that the Appellant was responsible to the Appellant for the electricity supplied by the Respondent as per the contract. The case of Thomas Thomas @ Mohan K Thomas v. Tenaga Nasional Berhad ; [2018] 5 MLJ 831 ; [2017] 4 CLJ 340 was cited.

[5] The Appellant's defence of res judicata was rejected because the 3 cases cited by the Appellant had either involved different parties (the suit WA-A72NCvC-8600-12/2019 (Case 8600) was between the Appellant and her tenant), or different causes of action (Suit BB-A72NCvC-599-06/2022 (Case 599) was for claims of meter tampering) or was struck out on procedural ruling (Suit BB-A72NCvC-655-07/2023 (Case 655) was struck out as it was identical to the counterclaim in Case 599).

[6] As to the contention that the Appellant had repeatedly sought for a disconnection, the Magistrates' Court found that it was only made on 10 February 2020. The Magistrates' Court agreed with the Respondent's position that the disconnection was at their discretion under the Electricity Supply Act 1990 (the Act). However, it ruled that until the account is officially closed, the Appellant remained liable.

[7] The Magistrates' Court disregarded evidence about the premises being vacant as that was not properly pleaded and held that the parties were bound by their pleadings.

[8] Thus, the Magistrates' Court found that the Respondent had proven its case on a balance of probabilities that resulted in its ruling in the favour of the Respondent. The Appellant was ordered to pay to the Respondent the outstanding amount of RM14,962.78 as at 27 February 2020 based on the electricity bill dated 27 February 2020 is