Why Edo High Court acquitted DHL franchise operator Nuhu Omokide, voided conviction

A High Court sitting in Benin City, Edo State, has discharged and acquitted a DHL franchise operator, Nuhu Omokide, setting aside his earlier conviction by a Magistrate Court in 2025.

Delivering judgment in Charge No. B/10CA/2025 on March 31, 2026, Justice E.G. Adekanmbi nullified the lower court’s decision and ruled in favour of the appellant against the Commissioner of Police.

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish criminal liability against Omokide, thereby overturning both the conviction and the sentence previously imposed on him.

In a detailed judgment, Justice Adekanmbi resolved all the issues for determination in favour of the appellant, stating that the facts before the trial court pointed only to a missing parcel and not to any criminal conduct.

The judge found that the prosecution did not discharge the burden of proving that Omokide converted the documents in question for his personal use instead of delivering them.

The court further held that police investigations did not contradict evidence presented by the appellant, including a tracking document showing that the parcel had left the Benin office of DHL. As a result, there was no legally admissible evidence linking the appellant to theft or conversion.

According to the judgment, uncontroverted evidence showed that the parcel was received at a DHL office in Benin City for delivery to an address in the United Kingdom. While a witness claimed the parcel was destined for London, documentation indicated it was addressed to Aberdeen.

Justice Adekanmbi also stressed that individuals cannot be held criminally liable for the actions or omissions of a company unless there is clear evidence that they personally participated in or concealed criminal conduct.

The court held that it could be inferred that the parcel went missing in transit, possibly due to negligence within the company, but that the prosecution failed to prove that Omokide was personally responsible.

According to the Judge, “No specific acts of a criminal nature were proved against the appellant,” the judge ruled, adding that the trial court erred in finding that the defendant had fraudulently appropriated the parcel.

In his words: “In resolving the sole issue for determination, I find that the facts before the trial court only establish a case of a missing parcel of documents, which was the responsibility of DHL to deliver to the addressee in the United Kingdom.

“There was no scintilla of evidence showing personal negligence on the part of the appellant as the cause of the loss.

“The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds.”

Consequently, the court set aside the judgment of the trial court, including the conviction and sentence, and ordered that Omokide be discharged and acquitted.

Justice Adekanmbi also directed that the sum of N250,000 paid by the appellant as an option of fine be refunded.

“I hereby set aside the judgment of the trial court, including the conviction and sentence, discharge and acquit the appellant, and order that the N250,000 fine paid be refunded,” the judge held.

A copy of the judgment shows that the appellant was represented by Efe Abulimen, P.O. Agbale, and Emmanuel Okunega, while the respondent was represented by S. Okoro (S.G) and other counsel.

During the trial, the prosecution argued that Omokide, as the operator in charge of the outlet, was responsible for the missing parcel. However, the defence maintained that the transaction was conducted in the name of DHL as a corporate entity and that no direct evidence linked the defendant personally to any criminal act.

The ruling brings to an end the legal dispute arising from the loss of the parcel intended for delivery to the United Kingdom, reaffirming the principle that criminal liability must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.