Background
In January 2025, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered judgment in Suiming Electrical Limited v. Federal Republic of of Nigeria, originating from a joint trial at the Federal High Court, Lagos, in Suit No. FHC/L/117C/2018. Suiming Electrical Limited (the appellant), Peter Nwaoboshi (2nd respondent) and Golden Touch Construction Project Limited (3rd respondent) had been charged with offences under sections 15(2)(d) and 18(a) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011, relating to an N1.2 billion loan facility obtained for factory machinery acquisition.
The prosecution alleged that N322 million of the loan proceeds was diverted to purchase a property known as "Guinea House" in Apapa, Lagos, contrary to the loan’s specified purpose. The trial court acquitted the defendants, but on appeal the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, set aside the acquittal on 1 July 2022, convicted and sentenced the appellant and co-defendants, including winding up the company and forfeiting its assets to the Federal Government.
The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court (SC.CR/899/2022), joined by sister appeals SC.CR/900/2022 (Nwaoboshi) and SC.CR/898/2022 (Golden Touch). On 7 July 2023, the Court had already determined SC.CR/900/2022, holding that loan proceeds vest in the borrower and one cannot misappropriate one’s own property. The present appeal was argued on whether the Supreme Court is bound by its prior decision in a sister appeal when dealing with identical facts and issues.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court is bound by its earlier decision in sister appeal No. SC.CR/900/2022 when determining the present appeal SC.CR/899/2022.
- Whether loan proceeds become the property of the borrower and thus cannot form the basis of a misappropriation or money laundering conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court reaffirmed the doctrine of stare decisis: where a superior court has conclusively determined a point of law on identical facts, subsequent identical appeals are bound by that decision. In Nwaoboshi v. FRN (SC.CR/900/2022) the Court held that proceeds from a loan facility vest in the borrower, who may allocate funds as he chooses within repayment terms, and cannot be convicted of misappropriating his own property.
Court Findings
The Supreme Court, led by Mohammed Lawal Garba, JSC, found:
- The facts, issues and parties in SC.CR/899/2022 mirror those in SC.CR/900/2022 and SC.CR/898/2022.
- The judgment in SC.CR/900/2022 delivered on 7 July 2023 constitutes final, binding authority on the same questions in this sister appeal.
- The principle of stare decisis demands consistency: the Court cannot deliver two conflicting decisions on identical facts.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal without re-arguing issues already settled.
Conclusion
By unanimous decision, the Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal’s conviction and sentences of 1 July 2022, restored the Federal High Court’s judgment of 18 June 2021, and entered a verdict of acquittal and discharge in favor of Suiming Electrical Limited. The appellant and co-respondents are cleared of money laundering and related charges.
Significance
This ruling underscores two key legal principles:
- Stare Decisis in Criminal Appeals: The Supreme Court will adhere to its own prior decisions in contemporary sister appeals with identical facts, ensuring legal certainty and consistency.
- Ownership of Loan Proceeds: Money obtained under a loan facility vests in the borrower, and misappropriation charges cannot stand where the accused owned the funds. This clarifies the reach of money laundering statutes over corporate and individual borrowers.