CORAM

---

Mohammed Lawal Garba Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Tijjani Abubakar Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Jummai Hannatu Sankey Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Jamilu Yammama Tukur Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

GOLDEN TOUCH CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LIMITED

APPELLANTS 

---

1. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

2. PETER NWAOBOSHI

3. SUIMING ELECTRICAL LIMITED

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CRIMINAL LAW, MONEY LAUNDERING, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PRECEDENT, STARE DECISIS, JUDICIAL DISCRETION, CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES, CORPORATE LAW

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case revolved around charges of money laundering against Golden Touch Construction Project Limited (the Appellant), Peter Nwaoboshi (2nd Respondent), and Suiming Electrical Limited (3rd Respondent). The charges originated from a N1,200,000,000.00 loan facility obtained by the 3rd Respondent from the Nigerian Import Export Bank (NEXIM Bank) for the purpose of acquiring additional machinery for the 3rd Respondent’s factory. The 2nd Respondent, who was the alter ego of both the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent, and the sole signatory to the 3rd Respondent’s account with Zenith Bank, was alleged to have, on May 14, 2014, transferred N322,000,000.00 from the loan sum to the Delta State Government as part payment for acquiring a property known as “Guinea House” in Apapa, Lagos State. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (1st Respondent) contended that this act was fraudulent and contrary to the provisions of Section 15(2) & (3) and 18(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011.

The Federal High Court, Lagos had discharged and acquitted all three defendants of the offences. Dissatisfied, the 1st Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, which reversed the trial Court’s decision, finding the Appellant and the other defendants guilty of the offences charged. The Appellant was sentenced to winding-up and forfeiture of all its property to the Federal Government pursuant to Section 22(2) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011. The 2nd Respondent was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, while the 3rd Respondent was similarly ordered to be wound up.

Each of the convicted parties filed separate appeals to the Supreme Court. Notably, the Supreme Court had previously decided the appeal of the 2nd Respondent (SC/CR/900/2022) on July 7, 2023, allowing the appeal and restoring the trial Court’s acquittal.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was allowed.

2. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division delivered on July 1, 2022, was set aside.

3. The decision of the Federal High Court, Lagos acquitting and discharging the Appellant of the offences with which it was charged, was restored.

4. The Supreme Court held that it was bound by its previous decision in SC/CR/900/2022 (Nwaoboshi v. FRN & Ors) where it had determined the same issues arising from the same facts and circumstances on identical grounds of appeal.

5. The Court reaffirmed its position that the powers vested in the EFCC to prevent, control, investigate and prosecute financial crimes including money laundering does not extend to the investigation, resolution and prosecution of contractual disputes and disputes arising from other civil transactions.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Court of Appeal misapprehended the provisions of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 when it convicted and sentenced the Appellant to winding up and forfeiture of all its properties to the Federal Government for money laundering.

2. Whether the Court of Appeal was in error to apply the principles of law in Anyasodor v. The State, Koku v. The State (and other cases) to overrule the decision of the learned trial judge concerning the evidence of PW4.

3. Whether in the absence of a ground of appeal complaining of the rejection in evidence by the trial Court of Exhibit R1 series, the Court of Appeal was right to have unilaterally admitted in evidence Exhibit R1 series and in relying on them to convict the Appellant.

4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in inflicting the sentence of winding-up of the Appellant and the forfeiture of all its properties to the Federal Government of Nigeria which sentence is inconsistent with the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 in which it was charged.

5. Whether the Court of Appeal was not in error to hold, contrary to the decision of the trial Court, that there was credible and overwhelming evidence in proof of the essential ingredients of the charge of money laundering to warrant the Appellant’s conviction and sentence for money laundering.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

SEPARATE APPEALS IN CRIMINAL MATTERS – PROPER PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING RELATED CRIMINAL APPEALS

---

The separate Appeals filed by the three (3) Appellants in the Court below in line with the recognized procedure and practice in criminal matters, were heard separately by the same panel of the Court below which returned a separate judgment, each convicting the Appellants on the two (2) counts charge of money laundering and abetting money laundering. – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

BINDING EFFECT OF PREVIOUS DECISIONS – APPLICATION OF STARE DECISIS TO SISTER APPEALS

---

Since this Court is bound by its own previous decision/s on the same issues arising from the same facts, circumstances and grounds of appeal… the judgment in Appeal No: SC/CR/900/2022 binds this appeal and the Appeal No: SC/CR/899/2022. – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

HANDLING OF RELATED APPEALS – CONSIDERATION OF PREVIOUS DECISIONS ON IDENTICAL MATTERS

---

In the above premises, there is merit in this appeal and it is allowed accordingly without the need to repeat the consideration of the issues already determined by the Court in the earlier judgment in Appeal No. SC/CR/900/2022. – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

EFCC POWERS – LIMITATION ON INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES

---

The EFCC initiated this criminal process against the appellant and others in contemptuous disregard of the law that is settled by a long line of the decisions of this Court that the powers vested on the EFCC by the prevent, control, investigate and prosecute financial crimes including money laundering does not extend to the investigation, resolution and prosecution of contractual disputes and disputes arising from other civil transactions.- Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

CONTRADICTION IN DECISIONS – IMPORTANCE OF CONSISTENCY IN SISTER APPEALS

---

It goes without saying that there cannot be two contradictory decisions in sister appeals that share the same facts. This is the purport of the doctrine of stare decisis. The doctrine postulates that a point of law which has been settled by a superior Court should be followed.- Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.

 

---

APPLICATION OF STARE DECISIS – CONTEXTUAL APPLICATION OF PRECEDENT

---

Without a doubt, the doctrine of precedent or stare decisis is not applied in vacuo rather, it must be done in context. That is to say that the Court does not follow an earlier decision blindly, but in context where the facts are in pari materia that is, when it is on all fours with the facts of the current case under discourse.- Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.

 

---

BINDING FORCE OF PRECEDENT – ADHERENCE TO PREVIOUSLY DECIDED CASE

---

This Court adheres to the principles of judicial precedent (stare decisis) and will hold itself bound by its previous decision.- Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.

 

---

EFCC AS DEBT RECOVERY AGENCY – IMPROPER USE OF CRIMINAL PROCESS

---

What is even more disturbing in recent times is the way and manner the Police and some other security agencies, rather than focus squarely on their statutory functions of investigation, preventing and prosecuting crimes, allow themselves to be used by overzealous and/or unscrupulous characters for the recovery of debts arising from simple contracts, loans or purely civil transactions. – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

OWNERSHIP OF LOAN MONEY – RIGHT OF BORROWER TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS

---

In that decision, this Court held that where a loan facility is granted, the money becomes the property of the borrower and he reserves the right to appropriate it however he desires, so long as he keeps to the terms of the repayment clause and that a person who is the owner of money or property cannot be validly convicted of misappropriating his own property. – Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.

 

---

AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICTING DECISIONS – NEED FOR SAME PANEL TO HEAR RELATED APPEALS

---

The above being the position, since the three (3) appeals by the appellant, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents are against the conviction and sentences for the offences they were jointly charged and fried, by the Court below, they are against the same, even if not single, decision/judgment of the Court below and should have been heard/taken by the same panel of this Court in order to avoid confusion and the possibility of or even likelihood of conflicting views, opinions and decisions by the Court over the same issues arising from the same decision of the Court below. – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF EXHIBITS – PROPER TESTIMONY REGARDING EXHIBIT CONTENTS

---

The argument that judicial discretion in election petitions is limited and must be exercised in line with the law and established evidence. – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.

 

---

PURPOSE OF STARE DECISIS – ENSURING CONSISTENCY AND CERTAINTY IN LAW

---

This principle presupposes that the law having been solemnly declared and determined in a former case should be applied in later cases in order to ensure consistency and certainty of the law, and that the scale of justice be kept even and steady. – Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.

 

---

UNNECESSARY DETERMINATION OF ISSUES – ACADEMIC EXERCISE

---

The earlier decision has rendered the determination of the two new issues formulated by the Appellant and the 1st Respondent in this instant appeal unnecessary as it will amount to an academic exercise.- Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011

2. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act

3. Court of Appeal Act, Section 15

4. Evidence Act, Section 84

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT