A Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, has struck out a crim!nal case connected to the disputed sale of Burna Boy’s early music catalogue, citing a lack of diligent prosecution by the police
The case stemmed from a disagreement over the transfer of rights to the Grammy winner’s early recordings, with allegations of fraudulent conversion and breach of fiduciary duty levelled against Aristokrat Records and its founder, Piriye Isokrari.
The matter was initiated by minority shareholder 960 Music Group, which owns a 40 per cent stake in Aristokrat Music. The company challenged the multimillion-dollar sale of Burna Boy’s early catalogue from Aristokrat Music to Spaceship Music, owned by the singer and managed by his mother, Bose Ogulu.
Court filings indicated that the intellectual property rights and master recordings from Burna Boy’s early career, including works such as his debut album L.I.F.E and the EP Redemption, were sold to Spaceship Music in a transaction completed around May and June 2024. The projects were originally released under Aristokrat Records in 2013 and 2016 respectively.
960 Music Group argued that it was not informed of the transaction and subsequently approached the court seeking to void the deal.
The dispute later escalated into a criminal charge after the Force Criminal Investigation Department accused Isokrari of diverting proceeds from the sale away from company accounts, allegedly denying 960 Music Group its rightful share.
The case, “Commissioner of Police v. Aristokrat Records Nigeria Limited & Anor (Charge No. FHC/L/1087/2025),” was scheduled for arraignment before Justice Kakaki on Wednesday.
However, both the prosecution and defence teams were absent in court. The prosecuting counsel was said to be engaged at the Court of Appeal in Jos, while the defence team also failed to appear.
An application was made to excuse the absence of the prosecution, but the judge rejected it, stating that another lawyer should have been assigned to handle the matter.
The court criticised the handling of the case, noting that despite several appearances by different prosecutors, the charge had still not been properly served on the defendant. It also recalled that substituted service had earlier been granted after the defendant failed to appear in previous sittings.
Ultimately, the court struck out the charge for lack of diligent prosecution.
Follow Us on Facebook – @LadunLiadi; Instagram – @LadunLiadi; Twitter – @LadunLiadi; Youtube – @LadunLiadiTV for updates
