A federal high court in Ikoyi, Lagos, has dismissed the criminal case regarding the alleged covert sale of Burna Boy’s early music catalogue, criticising the police over what it described as a negligent approach to pursuing the intellectual property disputes.
The lawsuit stemmed from a dispute over the sale of Burna Boy’s early catalogue and an alleged fraudulent conversion and breach of fiduciary duty against Aristokrat Records and its founder Piriye Isokrari.
960 Music Group, a minority shareholder, initiated a legal action to overturn the multimillion-dollar sale of Burna Boy’s catalogue from his former label Aristokrat Music to his current company Spaceship Music.
According to court filings, Aristokrat Music sold the intellectual property and master recordings from Burna Boy’s foundational years to Spaceship Music — owned by the artiste and his mother-manager Bose Ogulu — in a transaction dated May/June 2024.
960 Music Group, which holds a 40% equity stake in Aristokrat Music, claimed it was completely sidelined.
The catalogue includes the albums ‘L.I.F.E’ (2013) and ‘Redemption’ (2016), as well as the early singles that helped define Burna Boy’s Afro-fusion sound.
Following the sale, 960 Music Group filed a suit seeking to nullify the transaction. The dispute has since escalated, leading to criminal charges against Isokrari.
The Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID) accused him of diverting proceeds from the multi-million dollar sale away from the company’s official accounts, thereby defrauding 960 Music Group of its share.
The case, commissioner of police v. Aristokrat Records Nigeria Limited & Anor (Charge No. FHC/L/1087/2025), was scheduled for the defendant’s arraignment before Kakaki, the presiding judge.
When court resumed on Wednesday, the main parties were absent: the prosecuting attorney was tied up with another case at the court of appeal in Jos, Plateau state, while representatives of Aristokrat Records and their legal team were also not present.
A request was made for permission to address the court regarding the prosecutor’s absence. The judge rejected the request, noting that the prosecution’s office should have assigned another lawyer to manage the proceedings instead of leaving the matter unresolved.
The court then voiced strong dissatisfaction with how the police handled the case. The judge observed that despite two different lawyers having appeared for the prosecution at various times, the charge had still not been formally served on the defendant before strucking out the case.
The defendant had missed prior court dates, prompting the judge to authorise substituted service to facilitate proper notice. With no reasonable justification for ignoring that order or for failing to move the case toward arraignment, the court dismissed the charge due to lack of diligent prosecution.
The matter was first called in December 2025 and adjourned to February 10, 2026 and then April 20, 2026 — dates on which neither the defendant nor his legal representatives appeared.
Prosecutors may still seek to refile or revive the case once proper service and arraignment steps are taken.
The civil case, 960 Music Ltd v. Aristokrat Records Nigeria Limited & Ors (FHC/PH/CS/188/2024), continues at the federal high court in Port Harcourt, Rivers state, where 960 Music is asking the court to nullify the catalogue sale and recover the funds. The next hearing is scheduled shortly.
