*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.