*Edo High Court overturns conviction of DHL Benin Branch head, orders refund of fine.
*Rules Magistrate Court erred in holding employee personally responsible for missing parcel
The Edo State High Court sitting in Benin City has overturned the conviction of Nuhu Omokide, the head of DHL in Benin City, absolving him of any complicity in a missing parcel that was sent from Benin City to the United Kingdom but which the intended receiver claimed she never received, ruling that the Magistrate Court erred in convicting an individual employee for the actions or inactions of his corporate employer.
In a judgment delivered by Justice E.G. Adekanmbi in the appeal marked B/10CA/2025 between Nuhu Omokide as Appellant and Commissioner of Police as Respondent, the High Court set aside the Magistrate Court’s conviction and sentence, discharged and acquitted Omokide, and ordered that the N250,000 fine he had paid following the lower court’s conviction be refunded to him.
The ruling establishes important principles about the distinction between corporate and individual liability in Nigerian criminal law, the burden of proof in criminal cases, and the limits of holding employees personally responsible for outcomes that fall within the operational responsibility of their corporate employer.
The case originated from a petition filed by a complainant whose parcel, containing school certificates and documents related to her profession, was sent via DHL from the Benin City branch to a recipient in the United Kingdom. The recipient claimed she never received the parcel.
The petition was lodged against DHL as a company. However, criminal charges were subsequently filed against Omokide personally, in his capacity as the franchise owner and head of the DHL branch in Benin City.
Omokide was arraigned on five counts under Charge No. MEG/275c/2023/A, facing allegations of conspiracy to steal, stealing, and unlawful interference with customers’ property under Sections 412(1)(2), 287(1)(b)(c), and 346 of the Criminal Law of Edo State 2022.
On July 22, 2025, Chief Magistrate Grade I Afe Osamudiamen convicted Omokide on all five counts and imposed a fine of N250,000.
The conviction rested on the Magistrate’s conclusion that because Omokide, as the branch head, could not explain the whereabouts of the missing documents, he must have appropriated them.
Dissatisfied with the conviction, Omokide appealed to the Edo State High Court.
Justice Adekanmbi’s judgment systematically dismantled the lower court’s reasoning on multiple grounds, identifying fundamental errors of law and procedure that rendered the conviction unsustainable.
The most significant element of the judgment addresses the question of when an individual employee can be held personally liable for the actions or failures of the company they work for.
Justice Adekanmbi noted that the original petition was filed against DHL, which is a legal entity separate and distinct from its employees. The judge then articulated the legal principle that governs such cases.
“There is no law that makes individuals in the company liable for the company’s actions or inactions unless those individuals perpetrated crimes hiding under the corporate veil,” Justice Adekanmbi stated.
The principle of the corporate veil means that a company is a legal person in its own right, separate from its directors, shareholders, and employees. The actions of the company are the company’s actions, not the personal actions of any individual within it. Only where individuals have used the corporate structure to perpetrate crimes, a concept known as “piercing the corporate veil,” can they be held personally liable for what are otherwise the company’s responsibilities.
In Omokide’s case, there was no evidence that he had used the corporate structure of DHL to perpetrate any crime. He was simply the branch manager doing his job. The failure of a parcel to reach its destination was a matter of corporate service delivery, not an individual criminal act.
The High Court found that the records from the lower court did not show that any specific acts of a criminal nature were proved against Omokide.
Justice Adekanmbi noted that Omokide “is a staff member of DHL whose responsibility starts and ends as the manager of the Benin branch of the company.” His role was managerial, not operational in the sense of physically handling every parcel that passed through the branch.
The judge pointed to a critical piece of evidence that the lower court appeared to have disregarded. Omokide presented tracking records of the company which indicated that the parcel in question left the Benin office. If the tracking records show the parcel departed Benin City, it was no longer in Omokide’s possession or under his direct control, and its subsequent loss occurred somewhere along the international logistics chain between Nigeria and the United Kingdom.
“The record also showed that the appellant presented tracking records of the company, which indicated that the parcel in question left the Benin office of the company and, as such, was not with the appellant,” Justice Adekanmbi stated.
The High Court identified a fundamental error in the Magistrate Court’s approach to the burden of proof, one that goes to the heart of criminal justice.
The lower court concluded that Omokide “appropriated” the items in the parcel because he could not explain the whereabouts of the documents. In essence, the Magistrate convicted the appellant for failing to prove his innocence rather than requiring the prosecution to prove his guilt.
Justice Adekanmbi corrected this error in clear and forceful terms.
“In our adversarial system of adjudication, it is never the responsibility of the defendant to prove his innocence. It was the prosecution who had the unmistakable onus to prove that the appellant stole or converted the credentials to his own use instead of delivering them,” the judge stated.
This is a foundational principle of criminal law, enshrined in Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Magistrate Court’s reasoning, that the defendant must explain where the parcel went or be convicted, effectively reversed the burden of proof, placing it on the defendant and presuming guilt from an inability to account for a missing item.
Justice Adekanmbi was particularly emphatic about the absence of evidence of personal negligence on Omokide’s part.
“The trial court only made out the 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 in proof of personal negligence on the part of the appellant as the reason for the loss of the parcel,” the judge ruled.
The phrase “not a scintilla of evidence” is legally significant. It means there was not even the smallest fragment of evidence linking Omokide personally to the loss of the parcel. The prosecution failed entirely to establish any personal act, omission, or negligence by the appellant that caused or contributed to the parcel going missing.
The High Court’s conclusion was unequivocal.
“The prosecution failed to prove the Counts 1 to 5 beyond reasonable doubt,” Justice Adekanmbi ruled.
The judge then granted four specific orders. The judgment of the trial court was set aside in its entirety. The conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside. Omokide was discharged and acquitted on all five counts. And the N250,000 fine paid by Omokide following the lower court conviction was ordered to be refunded to him.
The judgment establishes or reinforces several important legal principles with implications beyond the specific facts of the case.
On corporate liability, the ruling affirms that employees cannot be held personally criminally liable for the failures of their employer company unless there is evidence they personally committed criminal acts using the corporate structure as a cover. A missing parcel is a service failure by the company, not a crime by its branch manager.
On burden of proof, the ruling reinforces that in Nigeria’s adversarial criminal justice system, the defendant is never required to prove innocence. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a defendant’s inability to explain a particular circumstance does not relieve the prosecution of this burden.
On the standard of proof, the ruling emphasises that “not a scintilla of evidence” of personal wrongdoing means conviction is impossible regardless of how suspicious the circumstances may appear. Suspicion, however strong, is not evidence.
On the distinction between civil and criminal liability, the ruling implicitly acknowledges that the complainant may have a valid civil claim against DHL as a company for the non-delivery of her parcel, but that such a service failure does not translate into criminal liability for the company’s branch manager.
The judgment carries significant implications for business owners, franchise operators, and employees across Nigeria.
If the lower court’s reasoning had been upheld, it would have established a precedent under which any employee in a managerial position could be held personally criminally liable whenever their company failed to deliver a service, regardless of whether the employee personally did anything wrong.
This would have exposed branch managers, franchise operators, store supervisors, and other frontline managers to criminal prosecution for every customer complaint, lost shipment, or service failure that occurred within their area of responsibility, a prospect that would make business management in Nigeria untenable.
The High Court’s judgment restores the correct legal position: companies are responsible for their service failures through civil law, and individuals are only criminally liable when they personally commit criminal acts, not when the system they manage produces an unsatisfactory outcome.
With the High Court’s discharge and acquittal, Omokide’s criminal record from the Magistrate Court conviction is expunged. He is no longer a convicted person. And the N250,000 fine he paid following the lower court’s conviction must be refunded to him.
For Omokide, who spent years under the cloud of a criminal conviction for a missing parcel he had no personal role in losing, the judgment represents complete vindication and the restoration of his professional reputation.
In this article