189
By Bayo Davids
Justice Musa Kakaki of the Federal High Court, Lagos has granted the prosecution’s request to regularise its application to call an additional witness in the ongoing N152 million property fraud trial involving property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his company, Oak Homes Limited.
The trial, brought by the Nigeria Police Force, borders on allegations of conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretense, fraud, and stealing.
Delivering his ruling, Justice Kakaki held that the prosecution’s motion, dated October 23, 2025, was meritorious and thus granted as prayed. He further directed the prosecution to serve the defence with the amended application for a virtual hearing within 14 days, while the defence is to file its response before the next adjourned date.
“The application is granted as prayed. The prosecution is to serve the amended application on the defence within 14 days, and the defence shall respond before the next adjourned date,” the judge ruled.
Olusanya, the Chief Executive Officer of Oak Homes Limited, is standing trial alongside the company on a four-count charge filed by the police. The defendants were first arraigned on November 26, 2024, and pleaded not guilty to all charges.
According to the charge, Olusanya and the firm’s then Head of Sales and Marketing, Ms. Lynda Umeh (now at large), allegedly defrauded a Nigerian-American engineer, Mr. Anthony Ugbebor, of N152 million between November 8, 2017, and August 4, 2020.
The prosecution claims the defendants collected the funds under the pretext of selling two three-bedroom apartments at Oak Residence, Victoria Island, Lagos, promising delivery by February 28, 2019—but failed to hand over the property.
At the resumed hearing, prosecution counsel, CSP Monday Omo-Osagie informed the court that the matter was fixed for continuation of trial via virtual hearing, in line with an earlier application filed on July 25, 2025.
However, defence counsel Agboola Adeleke (SAN) objected, insisting that the prosecution had not properly served the defence with the application for a virtual trial.
“I am completely opposed to the virtual trial. This is a criminal case; the parties should be physically present. In any event, we have not been served. If the prosecution is not ready, they should close their case,” Adeleke argued.
Responding, Omo-Osagie maintained that the application had been duly filed and lodged with the court’s registry.
“I made inquiries from the registrar and did the needful. That is why this virtual setup was arranged. However, since the court has observed that the process was not properly completed, we are asking for time to regularise the application,” he said.
Adeleke countered that the prosecution had initially listed four witnesses, out of which three had already testified. He noted that it was unclear which witness the prosecution intended to call virtually. He also pointed out that the amended application was only served on the defence the previous Friday and urged the court to impose a 14-day time limit to avoid further delays.
Counsel to the second defendant, Jude Ehiedu, aligned himself with Adeleke’s submissions, confirming he had seen the application though not formally served.
Justice Kakaki subsequently adjourned the matter to February 9, 2026, for continuation of trial. At the previous sitting, the court had barred an unlisted prosecution witness from testifying after the defence objected, arguing that only witnesses named in the proof of evidence could be called.