By Dayo Davids
A Nigerian-American engineer, Anthony Ehiedu Ugbebor, has approached the Court of Appeal in Lagos to overturn a High Court judgment that ordered the refund of ₦152 million he paid for two luxury apartments in Victoria Island, insisting that he wants the properties delivered rather than his money returned.
In a Notice of Appeal challenging the June 15, 2026 judgment of the Lagos State High Court sitting in Osborne, Ikoyi, Ugbebor argued that the trial court wrongly held that his purchase agreement with property developer Olukayode Olusanya and Oak Homes Multinational Services Limited had been extinguished by the doctrine of novation.
He is asking the appellate court to restore the original sale agreement, compel the developer to complete and hand over the apartments and set aside the entire judgment.
The dispute arose from Suit No. LD/4471LM/2023, instituted by Olusanya and Oak Homes against Ugbebor and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over alleged trespass on two three-bedroom apartments located on the second floor of a property at 14A Musa Yar’Adua Street, Victoria Island, Lagos.
Although the High Court dismissed most of the claims brought by the developer, Justice Akingbola George held that the conduct of both parties had effectively replaced the original contract with a new arrangement through the doctrine of novation.
The court consequently ordered Oak Homes to refund the ₦152 million already paid by Ugbebor while dismissing his counterclaim seeking specific performance of the agreement or, in the alternative, damages.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant contended that the trial judge misapplied settled principles of contract law, ignored material evidence and wrongly dismissed his counterclaim.
At the centre of the appeal is Ugbebor’s insistence that the original agreement remains valid and enforceable.
He argued that the court wrongly concluded he had defaulted in making payments, maintaining that the payment structure under the agreement was tied to construction milestones rather than fixed calendar dates.
According to the appeal, the agreement required him to pay 35 per cent of the purchase price upon completion of the roofing stage and the final 20 per cent only after the apartments had been completed.
Ugbebor maintained that he had already paid about 80 per cent of the agreed purchase price even though the developer allegedly failed to reach the contractual construction milestones.
He further argued that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proving payment to him instead of requiring Oak Homes, which alleged breach of contract, to establish non-payment.
A major issue raised in the appeal concerns the trial court’s reliance on the doctrine of novation.
Justice George had held that the conduct of the parties created a new contractual relationship that extinguished the original agreement.
However, Ugbebor argued that the finding is inconsistent with established Nigerian contract law.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Heritage Bank Ltd v. Ajugwo, he contended that novation cannot be inferred merely from the conduct of parties.
According to him, a valid novation requires a clear agreement by all parties to substitute the existing contract with a new one, accompanied by an intention to extinguish the original obligations.
He argued that no witness testified to the existence of such an agreement and that no documentary evidence was tendered to support that conclusion.
Rather, he maintained that the parties’ conduct reflected issues relating to delayed performance and alleged breach of contract, not the creation of an entirely new contractual arrangement.
The appellant also faulted the trial court for refusing his claim for specific performance.
He argued that, having found that the developer attempted to profit from the alleged breach, the court ought to have compelled completion and delivery of the apartments instead of merely ordering a refund.
According to him, contracts involving land and real property are among the limited categories in which courts traditionally grant specific performance because monetary compensation may not adequately remedy the loss.
He further submitted that the trial court failed to properly evaluate evidence showing that he remained ready and willing to fulfil his obligations under the agreement.
Ugbebor also argued that the court failed to determine the issue of frustration of contract despite the fact that both parties pleaded it, presented evidence and addressed it extensively in their final written submissions.
He contended that the judgment contains no findings on whether any frustrating event occurred or whether it fundamentally altered the parties’ contractual obligations.
The appeal further challenges the dismissal of his counterclaim, arguing that the trial court failed to analyse each of the reliefs sought, including claims for general damages, special damages and specific performance.
According to the appellant, the judgment acknowledged breaches by the developer but declined to grant any of the remedies sought, resulting in what he described as contradictory findings.
He also argued that the refusal to award general damages was erroneous because such damages naturally flow from a proven breach of contract.
Ugbebor is therefore asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the High Court judgment in its entirety, declare the original sale agreement valid and subsisting, and compel Oak Homes to complete and hand over the two luxury apartments in accordance with the terms of the contract.