{"id":120033,"date":"2025-06-24T17:38:35","date_gmt":"2025-06-24T16:38:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pointblanknews.com\/pbn\/?p=120033"},"modified":"2025-06-24T17:38:35","modified_gmt":"2025-06-24T16:38:35","slug":"we-didnt-deliver-two-apartments-to-our-client-property-developer-tells-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pointblanknews.com\/pbn\/news\/we-didnt-deliver-two-apartments-to-our-client-property-developer-tells-court\/","title":{"rendered":"We didn\u2019t deliver two apartments to our client, property developer tells court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
By Bayo Davids<\/div>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
A property developer, Mr. Olukayode Olusanya, and his company, Oak Homes Limited have owned up before the Lagos State High Court sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square, their failure to deliver two apartment units to a client as agreed, in an ongoing N152 million property litigation case.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The admission came during proceedings in Suit No: LD\/4471LM\/2023 filed by the claimants against Mr. Anthony Ugbebor and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), who are the first and second defendants, respectively.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
While being cross-examined by defence counsel, Mr. N. Salau, Olusanya told Justice Akingbola George that the company did not meet the agreed completion and handover date.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cThe completion date we communicated was two and a half years, late 2019 or thereabout. February 28, 2019, was the completion and handover date. Yes, we didn\u2019t deliver to the first defendant,\u201d Olusanya confessed.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Asked if he had the consent of the first defendant\u2019s authourisation to sell the two three-bedroom apartment units at Oak Residence, Victoria Island, Olusanya responded, \u201cI got the authourisation to sell from the first defendant? No. But from the EFCC, yes.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
On whether the first defendant accepted the delay in delivery, the witness said, \u201cYes, he was satisfied with the delay. He was fully aware of the scenario.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Oaks Homes Limited boss hinged the transaction on an offer letter dated November 6, 2017, stressing that the first defendant paid a total of N152 million to Oak Homes over three years, with the final payment made in late 2022.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
When asked if he had documented the grounds for terminating the contract, he replied \u201cI did not state the grounds for the liquidation of the contract. As stated in the contract, I made a refund based on the instructions of the second defendant (EFCC).\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Earlier, while being led in evidence by his counsel, Mr. AdelekeAgboola (SAN), the claimant identified two initial offer letters addressed to the first defendant, dated November 6 and November 7, 2017, respectively. A third offer letter was issued in 2022 to Kofo Coker & Co.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
On the whereabouts of the original offer letters, Olusanya said: \u201cThey are with the first defendant.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He added that communication between Oak Homes and the first defendant was primarily via email.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The witness also referred to a letter from the EFCC Cybercrime Department, dated April 27, 2023.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
He stated that Oak Homes responded via letters dated June 8, 2023, and August 3, 2023, the latter titled \u201cNotice to Seize to Trespass Property.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Olusanya continued, \u201cThere were several bank drafts made to the defendant. Subsequent communications included an email from our counsel to the first defendant and the EFCC, and a letter titled \u2018Notice of Trespass and Desist\u2019 sent to both parties.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The court admitted Olusanya\u2019s statement of claim, sworn on May 8, 2024, and a further affidavit filed in June 2025. Nine supporting documents were also accepted as exhibits.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
However, when Agboola sought to tender additional documents, including the property purchase agreement and documents from the Lagos State Government, defence counsel, Salau objected to the admissibility of the agreement, arguing it was unsigned.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cAn unsigned document is a worthless paper,\u201d Salau argued.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Responding, Agboola argued that lack of a signature did not preclude admissibility, relying on Aliu v. Nnamdi (2022): \u201cMy learned friend didn\u2019t say the document wasn\u2019t received, only that it wasn\u2019t signed. That does not affect admissibility.\u201d<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In a bench ruling, Justice George held \u201cThe unsigned agreement between the claimant and the first defendant is hereby rejected.”<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Meanwhile, EFCC counsel, Mr. M. A. Sheu, applied for an adjournment, explaining he had just resumed work after a period of illness and needed time to review the case file and prepare for cross-examination.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Justice George granted the application and adjourned the matter to June 30, 2025, for continuation of the trial.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n