CORAM
Mohammed Garba-Justice of supreme court 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 supreme court
PARTIES
SUIMING ELECTRICAL LIMITED
APPELLANTS
1.FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
2. PETER NWAOBOSHI
3. GOLDEN TOUCH CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LIMITEDRESPONDENT(S)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CRIMINAL LAW, MONEY LAUNDERING, APPEAL, STARE DECISIS, JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, PROPERTY LAW, BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CORPORATE LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This case stemmed from allegations of money laundering against the Appellant (Suiming Electrical Limited) and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents (Peter Nwaoboshi and Golden Touch, Construction Project Limited). The 1st Respondent (Federal Republic of Nigeria) alleged that, the 2nd Respondent, while serving as a Board Member of the Nigerian Import Export Bank,(NEXIM Bank), obtained a loan facility of N1,200,000,000.00 (One Billion, Two Hundred Million Naira) on behalf of the Appellant for the purpose of acquiring additional machinery for use in the Appellant’s factory. However, on May 14, 2014, the 2nd Respondent, contrary to the purported purpose of the loan, transferred N322,000,000.00 (Three Hundred and Twenty-Two Million Naira) to the Delta State Government as part payment for acquiring a property known as “Guinea House “located at Marine Road, Apapa, Lagos State. The 1st Respondent contended that this act was fraudulent and constituted money laundering contrary to Sections 15(2)(d) and 18(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011.
The trial Court (Federal High Court) discharged and acquitted the Appellant and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on all counts. However, the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, overturned this decision on July 1, 2022, finding them guilty as charged. The Court of Appeal sentenced the 2nd Respondent to seven years imprisonment while ordering the Appellant and the 3rd Respondent to be wound up. The Appellant, along with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, filed separate appeals to the Supreme Court. This appeal (SC.CR/899/2022) is one of three related appeals arising from the same Court of Appeal judgment.
HELD
1. The appeal was allowed.
2. The Supreme Court held that it was bound by its previous decision in the sister appeal (SC.CR/900/2022 – Peter Nwaoboshi v. FRN & Ors) delivered on July 7, 2023, which determined identical issues arising from the same facts.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in overturning the trial Court’s decision to discharge and acquit the Appellant of the offences of money laundering and abetting money laundering.?
2. Whether the Court’s previous decision in the sister appeal (SC.CR/900/2022) is binding on this appeal based on the doctrine of stare decisis.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
BINDING EFFECT OF PREVIOUS DECISIONS – DETERMINATION OF SISTER APPEALS WITH IDENTICAL ISSUES:
“With the complete, total, effectual and final determination of the issues in the Appeal No: SC/CR/900/2022 the decision/judgment in that appeal has sealed the fate of this appeal and the Appeal No: SC/CR/898/2022 since the Court is bound by that earlier/previous decision. See Braithwaite v. Skye Bank, Plc (2013) 5 NWLR (pt.1346) 1 (SC), FBN, Plc v. Maiwada (2013) 5 NWLR (pt.1348) 444 (SC), Ado v. State (2017) 15 NWLR (pt. 1587) 65 (SC), A. G. Bauchi State v. Federation (2018) 17 NWLR (pt. 1648) 299 (SC), Jibrin v. FRN (2020) 9 NWLR (pt.1714) 315 (SC).” – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.
EFFECT OF PREVIOUS SIMILAR DECISION – NECESSITY TO AVOID REPETITION:
“In these premises, that decision and the decision/judgment in the Appeal No: SC/CR/898/2022 bind on this appeal, thereby obviating the need to merely repeat a consideration of the issues and arguments canvassed that have already been determined by the Court.”– Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.
OWNERSHIP OF BORROWED FUNDS – RIGHT TO APPROPRIATE LOAN FACILITY:
“Therein, 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.
CONSISTENCY IN SISTER APPEALS – AVOIDANCE OF CONTRADICTORY DECISIONS:
‘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.”– Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
DEFINITION AND PURPOSE OF STARE DECISIS – ENSURING CONSISTENCY AND CERTAINTY:
The doctrine postulates that a point of law which has been settled by a superior Court should be followed. 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 so that the scale of justice be kept even and steady. See the decisions in PDP V Uche (2023) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1890) 523, 621, A; Izevbuwa V NBA (2022) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1823) 237; State V Yanga (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1769) 375, 393, D-G; Oluwaseyi V State (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1658) 108, 126, E-F.“– Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
CONTEXTUAL APPLICATION OF STARE DECISIS – CONSIDERATION OF FACTUAL SIMILARITY:
“However, 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 considers it in context. Where the facts are in pari materia, that is, on all fours with the current case under discourse, then it is applicable.”– Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
APPLICATION OF STARE DECISIS IN IDENTICAL CASES – WHEN PRINCIPLE IS IRREFUTABLE:
“Thus, in the instant case where the facts, the parties, and issues in the appeals are the same, as painstakingly outlined by my learned brother in the lead judgment, the principle of stare decisis irrefutably applies.” – Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
CONCURRENCE WITH LEAD JUDGMENT – JUDGE’S AGREEMENT WITH REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
“I had a preview of the leading judgement prepared and rendered in this appeal by my law lord and brother, MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, JSC, the reason and conclusion fall in accord with my own, I have nothing useful to add, I only join my lord in holding that the appeal is richly meritorious and therefore deserves to be and is hereby allowed.”– Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.
PARTIAL CONCURRENCE – OFFERING ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY:
“I had the opportunity to read in advance the judgment of my learned brother, Mohammed Lawal Garba, J.S.C. I agree with the analysis of the facts, his reasoning and conclusions. I shall however offer a few comments in support.” – Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
CONCURRENCE WITH RELIANCE ON PRECEDENT – BINDING EFFECT OF EARLIER DECISION:
“I equally agree that this Court is bound by its decision in the earlier sister-decided case of NWAOBOSHI v. FRN & ORS (2023) LPELR-60698(SC), and Appeal No: SC/CR/898/2022.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.
ENDORSEMENT OF LEAD JUDGMENT – COMPLETE AGREEMENT:
“My learned brother, MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA JSC, afforded me the opportunity of reading before now the lead judgment herein. I endorse the reasoning and conclusion in the judgment and I join my learned brother in allowing the appeal and setting aside the decision of the lower Court by which the Appellant along with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were convicted and sentenced for the offences of money laundering and abetting money laundering.– Per JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
OVERTURNING CONVICTION – RESTORATION OF TRIAL COURT’S ACQUITTAL:
Accordingly, there is merit in the appeal and it is allowed in terms of both the judgment in Appeals No. SC/CR/900/2022 and SC/CR/898/2022. In consequence wherefore, the decision of the Court below delivered on the 1st July, 2022 by which the Appellant herein along with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were convicted and sentenced for the offences of money laundering and abetting money laundering is hereby set aside.”– Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.
RESTORATION OF TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT – ACQUITTAL AND DISCHARGE:
“The judgment of the trial Court delivered on the 18th of June, 2021 is hereby restored. The Appellant is acquitted and discharged of the offence it was charged with.” – Per MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO