"I Was Just the Agent": Why That Defence Collapsed in a $10,000 Cash-for-Land Case: Aliyu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2026) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2055) 487 — Supreme Court of Nigeria

By
He signed for the cash himself. He pocketed $10,000 and ₦600,000 for a house sale. And when it all fell apart years later, his defence was that he wasn't really the one selling — he was just an agent for someone else. The Supreme Court's answer offers a sharp lesson in where the doctrine of agency simply doesn't reach: criminal liability.

The Facts

Back in 2002, the appellant — then a staff member of the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) — sold a three-bedroom apartment in Abuja's Lugbe Housing Estate to a buyer, acting (he said) as agent for one Major Sanusi N. Muazu, whom he claimed was the property's rightful allottee. The buyer paid $10,000 and ₦600,000 in cash and was let into possession. Three years later, the FHA ejected her, on the basis that the man who supposedly sold it never actually owned it.The buyer complained to Nigeria's anti-corruption commission, which investigated and arraigned the appellant at the Federal High Court in Abuja for accepting cash payment for the sale of landed property — an offence under Nigeria's foreign exchange law, which requires that payments for land, securities, and vehicles be made by bank transfer or cheque, not cash, precisely to curb money laundering and untraceable transactions. The appellant pleaded not guilty. 

The Journey Through the Courts

At trial, the prosecution called two witnesses and tendered documentary exhibits, including a receipt in which the appellant personally acknowledged receiving the $10,000 cash. The appellant's defence centred on a separate document — a deed of assignment bearing Major Muazu's name — which he said proved he was merely acting on the major's behalf and had simply passed the funds along. The trial court wasn't persuaded: it convicted him and sentenced him to twelve months' imprisonment or a fine of ₦2,000,000. The Court of Appeal affirmed, and the appellant took his case to the Supreme Court.

The Court's Reasoning

Cash for Land Is Simply Off the Table

The court confirmed the plain reading of the statute: with narrow exceptions, nobody in Nigeria may make or accept cash payment — whether in naira or foreign currency — for landed property, securities, or vehicles. Since the relevant law took effect, such payments must go through bank transfers or cheques. The court laid out the four elements of the offence: a person (natural or corporate) must be involved; there must be landed property; that property must have been sold for valuable consideration; and the person must have received or accepted cash for it.

A Signed Receipt Is Powerful Evidence

The appellant's own signed acknowledgment of the $10,000 cash — described by the court as a document that formally records the giving and receiving of something of value — combined with what emerged during cross-examination, was enough to establish that fourth element decisively. The court also underscored a broader evidentiary point: an admission is among the most powerful forms of proof available in a criminal trial, and the appellant's own written acknowledgment functioned as exactly that.

Agency Protects You in Civil Law — Not Here

This was the heart of the appeal. The court drew a sharp line between civil and criminal law: agency is a well-established concept in civil law, allowing one person's authorised acts to bind another. But criminal responsibility, the court explained, doesn't transfer between people the way contractual or civil obligations can. Criminal liability is personal — it attaches to the individual who committed the prohibited act, regardless of whether they were nominally acting for someone else. In blunt terms, there's no such thing as vicarious criminal liability in this context: an agent who personally accepts prohibited cash payment cannot offload that liability onto an alleged principal, proven or not.

The Alleged Agency Wasn't Even Proven

Compounding matters, the court found that the appellant hadn't actually established that a genuine agency relationship with Major Muazu existed in the first place — the deed of assignment he relied on didn't show that the major ever received the sale proceeds, and the appellant's own testimony on the point amounted to little more than an unsupported assertion. But even setting that evidentiary gap aside, the court was clear that a proven agency relationship still wouldn't have shielded him from criminal responsibility for personally accepting the cash.

Whose Job Is It to Weigh the Evidence?

Finally, the court reaffirmed that evaluating evidence — weighing witness credibility, assessing documents, forming impressions from watching witnesses testify — is primarily the trial court's job, precisely because it has advantages (like observing witnesses directly) that an appellate court, reading only the paper record, doesn't share. Appellate courts will only step in and override those findings in exceptional circumstances, and the appellant didn't come close to showing his case was one of them.

The Final Verdict

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence.

Key Takeaways

  • Cash payment for land in Nigeria is prohibited, full stop (subject to narrow statutory exceptions) — bank transfers and cheques are the only lawful methods.
  • Agency is a civil law shield, not a criminal one. Acting "on someone else's behalf" doesn't excuse personally accepting a prohibited payment.
  • A signed receipt or acknowledgment can be devastating evidence — it's a direct, personal admission that's hard to argue around later.
  • Claiming an agency relationship requires actual proof. A document that merely names a third party isn't enough without evidence showing that person actually received or authorised the transaction.

Questions for You

Should Nigerian law create any carve-out for genuine agents who unknowingly handle prohibited cash payments on behalf of a principal, or is a strict, no-exceptions approach the right way to deter this kind of transaction? What do you make of the court's reasoning that criminal liability simply cannot be delegated the way civil liability can?


This post is a plain-language summary and commentary based on a reported judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. It is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers with a specific legal question should consult a qualified legal practitioner.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tenant at Will or Yearly Tenant? What a Landlord-Tenant Dispute Teaches Us About Proving Oral Agreements: Odutola v. Papersack (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1012) 470 — Supreme Court of Nigeria

By
Image
If you've ever relied on a verbal understanding instead of getting it in writing, this case is a cautionary tale. It's a dispute over a warehouse in Lagos that turned entirely on one question: can you prove a tenancy existed just by saying so — or does the law demand more? The Property at the Centre of It All The dispute concerned premises at 44, Eric Moore Road, Iganmu Industrial Estate, Lagos. The first appellant owned the property outright and was also the founder, majority shareholder, and Managing Director of the second appellant, a company that had taken over the unexpired interest in the property from December 1991. According to the appellants, the original tenant of the property was a different company entirely — Thoresen and Co. (Nig.) Ltd — whose tenancy expired in 1980, then got a brief extension to 1982. The respondent, Papersack (Nig.) Ltd, moved into the property during Thoresen's tenancy, initially without the appellants' consent. It later paid rent for a...
Read more

F.R.N. v. Lamido [2026]

By
Image
A note before we begin: the underlying criminal trial in this matter is not concluded. This appeal was about a preliminary ruling only — whether the trial court had the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case at all, and a procedural question about how the notice of appeal was framed. Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision below is a finding of guilt or innocence on the substantive charges, which the trial court has now been directed to continue hearing. The respondent is presumed innocent unless and until that trial concludes with a finding to the contrary. Introduction This was an appeal by the Federal Republic of Nigeria against a Court of Appeal ruling that had discharged the respondent from a money laundering and conspiracy charge, on the basis that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear it. The Supreme Court, unanimously, allowed the appeal and sent the matter back for the trial to continue. Fact of the Case The respondent, together with seven othe...
Read more

You Struck Out the Plaintiff's Claim— But You Still Owe Him a Hearing Notice: Osumuo v. Udeaja [2026] 11 NWLR (Pt. 2052) 443 — Supreme Court of Nigeria

By
Imagine winning a court case worth a piece of prime land in Nnewi — only to have that victory wiped out years later, not because your evidence was weak, but because the man on the other side never got a notice telling him when to show up. That is the entire story of Osumuo v. Udeaja. It is a reminder that in Nigerian courts, a judgment can be procedurally spotless and legally doomed at the same time, if one small, unglamorous document — the hearing notice — never left the registry. The Facts The land at the centre of the fight, known as "Mbana" and sitting along the Onitsha–Owerri Road in Nnewi, Anambra State, had been leased out in 1953 for a term of 99 years. Decades later, the lessee's successor sued the lessor's successor, Andrew Osumuo, claiming a right to continued possession of the land, a declaration that a fresh lump-sum demand for ₦600,000 was improper, and other reliefs. Osumuo, once served, denied the claims and fired back with his own counter-claim: he wa...
Read more