By Bayo Davids
The Federal High Court in Lagos has reserved ruling until October 27, 2026, on the admissibility of key documentary evidence in the ongoing criminal trial of property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his company, Oak Homes Limited, over an alleged N152 million property fraud.
Justice Musa Kakaki fixed the date after hearing extensive arguments from both the prosecution and defence on whether four offer letters, said to show attempts by the defendants to resell the disputed properties to other buyers, should be admitted in evidence.
The prosecution alleges that Olusanya and Oak Homes fraudulently dealt with two luxury apartments for which the complainant had already paid N152 million. The defendants have denied any wrongdoing.
At the resumed hearing, the prosecution, led by Chief Superintendent of Police (CSP) Monday Omo-Osagie, called its third witness, the nominal complainant, Engineer Anthony Ugbebor, who travelled from the United States to testify.
Ugbebor told the court that he petitioned the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 2 Command, Lagos, on December 10, 2023, after concluding that Olusanya had fraudulently handled the property transaction.
He testified that he entered into an agreement with Oak Homes in November 2017 after receiving assurances that the company was a reputable developer capable of delivering a retirement home for him in Nigeria.
According to the witness, he accepted the offer by signing and returning the agreement via email before making payments in accordance with the contract.
He explained that the agreement was structured around construction milestones.
> “The contract was structured as a performance milestone contract. In other words, the contract was based on verifiable, satisfactory and completed work at various stages of the project from start to finish,” he told the court.
Ugbebor said he made four separate payments between November 2017 and December 2020, amounting to N152 million, representing 80 per cent of the agreed purchase price of N190 million for two second-floor apartments.
He described the money as his life savings, noting that it was equivalent to about 400,000 US dollars at the prevailing exchange rate.
> “I mentioned dollars because my income is in dollars. After the payment, the defendant started acting in a suspicious manner, basically taking my patience and simplicity for stupidity,” he said.
The witness stated that the apartments were scheduled for delivery on February 28, 2019. However, after construction stalled, he instructed a representative to inspect the project site on October 11, 2022.
As Ugbebor began recounting conversations involving his representative, defence counsel, Chief Adeleke Agboola (SAN), objected on the grounds that the evidence was hearsay.
“He can only testify as to what he did, and not what someone else did,” Agboola submitted.
Justice Kakaki observed that the testimony appeared to fall within the scope of hearsay evidence.
In response, the prosecutor argued that the Evidence Act recognises exceptions to the hearsay rule and urged the court to allow the witness to continue.
Ugbebor further testified that repeated efforts to contact Olusanya through telephone calls and emails proved unsuccessful.
> “It now occurred to me that it appears the defendant is embarking on fraudulent activities. It was based on this that I reported the matter to the police,” he said.
He alleged that the defendant subsequently claimed to have sold the apartments without his knowledge or consent. According to him, he later discovered several offer letters indicating that the same units were being marketed to prospective buyers at substantially higher prices.
The witness claimed that by December 15, 2024, the apartments were being offered for sale at N560 million each.
He also referred to an offer letter dated January 10, 2024, in which the two apartments were allegedly offered for a combined sum of N1.23 billion, while another dated January 11, 2024, quoted N950 million. A third offer letter dated February 5, 2024, allegedly listed the second-floor apartments at N360 million each.
Summarising his complaint, Ugbebor told the court:
> “The defendant is trying to forcefully expel me from my property, reclaim it, put it back in the market at a price determined by him, sell the properties and put the money in his pocket — all without my consent and authorisation.”
He added:
> “I gave the developer my life savings after staying in America for over 38 years. I paid him N152 million, equivalent to about 400,000 dollars.”
During the proceedings, the witness identified the statement he made to the police, which the court admitted in evidence without objection as Exhibit 3.
He also identified payment receipts issued by the defendants, which were equally admitted without objection.
However, proceedings became contentious when the prosecution sought to tender four offer letters allegedly showing attempts to resell the disputed apartments.
Agboola objected to their admissibility, arguing that the documents neither originated from the witness nor were addressed to him.
> “None of these documents was authored by this witness and none of them was addressed to him,” the senior advocate submitted.
He further argued that at least three of the documents were photocopies and relied on Section 83(1)(b) of the Evidence Act, contending that the makers of the documents ought to be called as witnesses.
The defence also invoked Section 83 of the Evidence Act, maintaining that documents prepared while judicial proceedings are pending are generally inadmissible.
> “Section 83 of the Evidence Act prohibits the admissibility of any document made when proceedings are pending. These documents were all made in 2024 when both this criminal charge and the civil case were already pending. Even if the maker were present, the documents should not be admitted,” Agboola argued.
Counsel for the second defendant, Jude Ehiedu, aligned himself with the submissions of the first defendant’s counsel.
Opposing the objections, Omo-Osagie urged the court to admit the documents, arguing that they were directly relevant to the issues before the court.
Relying on Section 15 of the Evidence Act, the prosecutor submitted that the offer letters were probative of the prosecution’s case.
> “A cursory look at these documents will show that the offer letters were issued on the letterhead of Oak Homes and signed by the first defendant,” he argued.
He also cited decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his application.
After hearing both sides, Justice Kakaki adjourned the matter until October 27, 2026, for ruling on the admissibility of the disputed offer letters and for the continuation of trial.
The prosecution alleges that Olusanya and Oak Homes collected N152 million from Ugbebor under a 2017 agreement for the purchase of two luxury apartments in a Lagos development but failed to deliver the properties as agreed. Investigators further allege that the defendants later sought to remarket the same apartments to other prospective buyers at significantly higher prices despite the complainant’s substantial payments.
The defendants have denied the allegations, and the trial is continuing before the Federal High Court in Lagos