- ROMRIG NIGERIA LIMITED v FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
- ₦ 200
ROMRIG NIGERIA LIMITED v FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
ROMRIG NIGERIA LIMITED
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC (Presided)
MARY UKAEGO PETER ODILI JSC
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI JSC
AMIRU SANUSI JSC (Read the Lead Judgment)
SIDI DADA BAGE JSC
FRIDAY, 15 DECEMBER 2017
APPEAL - Findings of facts of lower courts - Where concurrent - Attitude of Supreme Court to
COURT - Abuse of court process - Whether filing of two distinct criminal charges in separate appeals constitutes
COURT - Supreme Court - Attitude of to concurrent findings of lower courts
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Agent of a disclosed principal denying
on basis of status of when principal is charged for an offence - Impropriety of Commission (respondent) does not inure to the benefit
of the appellant.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that a crime cannot be condoned by the State.
3. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the withdrawal of the charge in the circumstance
of this case can never amount to an acquittal .
4. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the plea of double jeopardy was not available to
5. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the charge preferred against the accused person
leading up to the appeal did not constitute abuse of court process .
The appellant and six other accused persons were charged before the Federal High Court, Benin Division on a 66-count
charge of money laundering of funds belonging to the State and Local Governments of Edo State.
The accused persons challenged the competence of the suit on grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit
on basis of doctrine of double jeopardy and condonation. They also contended that the action constituted an abuse of court
One of the accused persons, Lucky Igbiniedion, the alter ego of the appellant had entered into a plea bargain agreement
with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission where he agreed to make full disclosure of his interests in the appellant.
The same Lucky Igbiniedion denied knowing the appellant and how the State or Local Government funds got into the appellant’s
The trial court in its ruling, dismissed the appellant’s application, holding that the doctrine of double jeopardy was not
available to it, neither did the suit constitute an abuse of court.