A Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, has dismissed a criminal case arising from the controversial sale of Burna Boy’s early music catalogue, criticising the police for failing to diligently pursue the matter.
The dispute centred on the transfer of rights to some of the Grammy-winning singer’s earliest works, with allegations of fraudulent conversion and breach of fiduciary duty brought against Aristokrat Records and its founder, Piriye Isokrari.
The legal battle was initiated by 960 Music Group, a minority shareholder holding a 40 per cent stake in Aristokrat Music. The company challenged the multimillion-dollar sale of Burna Boy’s catalogue to Spaceship Music, the singer’s record label, which is managed by his mother, Bose Ogulu.
According to court documents, the deal involved the transfer of intellectual property rights and master recordings from Burna Boy’s early years, including his debut album, L.I.F.E, and the EP Redemption. The transaction was reportedly completed between May and June 2024.
960 Music Group argued that it was not informed about the sale and subsequently sought legal action to nullify the transaction.
The disagreement later evolved into a criminal case after the Force Criminal Investigation Department accused Isokrari of diverting proceeds from the sale away from company accounts, allegedly depriving 960 Music Group of its share.
When the matter came up before Justice Kakaki on Wednesday, neither the prosecution nor the defence appeared in court. The prosecution reportedly informed the court that its counsel was handling another case at the Court of Appeal in Jos, while representatives of Aristokrat Records and their legal team were also absent.
The court rejected attempts to justify the prosecutor’s absence, stating that another lawyer could have been assigned to handle the case.
Justice Kakaki also expressed displeasure with the manner in which the case had been handled, noting that despite several court appearances by different prosecutors, the charge had not been properly served on the defendant.
The judge further recalled that the court had earlier granted substituted service after the defendant failed to attend previous proceedings, but the order was not effectively executed.
As a result, the court struck out the charge, citing lack of diligent prosecution.
