By Bayo Davies<\/p>\n
The Federal High Court in Lagos on Tuesday admitted a February 5, 2024, offer letter into evidence in the ongoing trial of property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his company, Oak Homes Ltd, over an alleged N152m property fraud.<\/p>\n
Justice Musa Kakaki, however, rejected three other documents dated January 10, January 11 and December 15, 2024, on the grounds that they were photocopies and the prosecution had failed to explain the whereabouts of their originals.<\/p>\n
The judge adjourned the case until December 3, 2026, for ruling on a prosecution application seeking permission for the nominal complainant, Anthony Ugbebor, to testify virtually on health grounds.<\/p>\n
The ruling on the documents followed objections raised during the July 20, 2026, proceedings, when the prosecution sought to tender them through Ugbebor.<\/p>\n
In his ruling, Justice Kakaki said the witness had failed to explain why the original copies of the three rejected documents were unavailable.<\/p>\n
\u201cOne of the grounds of the objections of January 10, January 11, and December 15, 2024, was that the documents are photocopies. On July 20, 2026, the witness, through whom the documents were to be tendered, did not give any explanation of where the original documents were,\u201d the judge said.<\/p>\n
On the February 5, 2024, offer letter, the judge dismissed the objection that Ugbebor was not the maker of the document.<\/p>\n
\u201cI also considered the submission of counsel on the document dated February 5, 2024, an objection of admissibility, that the nominal complainant is not the maker of the document, as there is no such provision. The document dated February 5, 2024, is hereby admitted in evidence,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Following the ruling, prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police Monday Omo-Osagie, informed the court that he had an application ready for hearing, adding that the defendants had been served and had filed their responses.<\/p>\n
Counsel for the first defendant, Adeleke Agboola, SAN, however, questioned Omo-Osagie\u2019s status, saying he had received information that the prosecutor had retired from the police.<\/p>\n
Agboola asked the prosecutor to clarify whether he was appearing under a fiat. He also complained that he had not been served with the application in his law office.<\/p>\n
According to him, when he raised the issue with the prosecutor earlier in the day, Omo-Osagie said he was not obliged to serve his office, having served the first defendant.<\/p>\n
Agboola argued that the application was not ripe for hearing and amounted to an attempt to revisit an issue already decided by the court.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe case before the court today was a ruling and continuation of trial. He should call his witness or close his case, so that the defendant can open his case,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Counsel for the second defendant, Jude Ehiedu, also asked the prosecutor to clarify whether he was appearing under a fiat.<\/p>\n
Although Ehiedu confirmed receipt of the application, he argued that it amounted to an abuse of court process because the court had previously ruled against a similar request.<\/p>\n
In response, Omo-Osagie maintained that he remained a serving police officer until he was issued a certificate of discharge.<\/p>\n
\u201cI am a serving police officer until I am issued a certificate of discharge. I am still in service. I do not know where the SAN got his information from or whether he has my discharge certificate,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
The prosecutor said the application was filed on September 21, 2026, and that the first defendant was served on September 30.<\/p>\n
He added that the application concerned the nominal complainant\u2019s health and was distinct from an earlier request seeking permission for Ugbebor to testify virtually because he was residing outside Nigeria.<\/p>\n
Justice Kakaki, however, said he had not seen the application in the court file and directed the prosecutor to check the registry to establish whether it had been properly filed.<\/p>\n
Upon returning to court, Omo-Osagie said a search at the registry confirmed that the application had been sent to the court and signed for by a registrar identified as Elizabeth.<\/p>\n
\u201cMy lord, this is not the first time this will be happening; this is the second time in a series. I would really like something to be done,\u201d he said, before presenting another copy of the application to the court.<\/p>\n
The prosecutor subsequently moved the motion on notice, dated September 18 and filed on September 21, 2026.<\/p>\n
He said the application was supported by a 12-paragraph affidavit and a written address, which he adopted in urging the court to grant the reliefs sought.<\/p>\n
Ehiedu objected to the prosecution\u2019s response to the defendants\u2019 counter-affidavits, arguing that the prosecutor had not filed a reply on points of law.<\/p>\n
Omo-Osagie said he had only received the first and second defendants\u2019 responses electronically on Monday.<\/p>\n
Benson Nwosu, who appeared for Agboola, argued that the earlier application, dismissed by the court on June 23, 2026, sought virtual testimony because the nominal complainant was outside Nigeria.<\/p>\n
He said the prosecution should appeal the earlier ruling rather than file another application seeking substantially the same relief.<\/p>\n
Nwosu also argued that the prosecution should close its case if the witness could not appear in person.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe matter can even be adjourned sine die. It is not compulsory that the nominal complainant must testify. The prosecution should close its case so that the defendant can take a bite at the cherry,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
He urged the court to dismiss the application. Counsel for the second defendant adopted the first defendant\u2019s arguments and urged the judge to reach the same conclusion.<\/p>\n
After listening to the parties, Justice Kakaki adjourned the case until December 3, 2026, for ruling on the application.<\/p>\n
At the previous proceedings on July 20, Ugbebor had narrated how he entered into the property transaction with Olusanya in November 2017 after receiving assurances that Oak Homes was a reputable developer capable of delivering a retirement home in Nigeria.<\/p>\n
He told the court that he signed and returned the agreement by email before making payments in line with its terms.<\/p>\n
According to the witness, the agreement was structured around performance milestones, with payments tied to verifiable and satisfactory completion of work at different stages of the project.<\/p>\n
Ugbebor said he made four payments between November 2017 and December 2020, totalling N152m, representing 80 per cent of the N190m purchase price for two flats on the second floor of the development.<\/p>\n
He described the money as his life savings, equivalent to about $400,000 at the prevailing exchange rates.<\/p>\n
\u201cI mentioned dollars because my income is in dollars. After the payment, the defendant started acting suspiciously, basically taking my patience and simplicity for stupidity,\u201d he told the court.<\/p>\n
Ugbebor said the project was scheduled for delivery on February 28, 2019, but construction later stalled, prompting him to send a representative to inspect the site on October 11, 2022.<\/p>\n
He said he subsequently petitioned the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 2 Command, Lagos, on December 10, 2023, after concluding that Olusanya had fraudulently handled the transaction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By Bayo Davies The Federal High Court in Lagos on Tuesday admitted a February 5, 2024, offer letter into evidence in the ongoing trial of property developer Olukayode Olusanya and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":130385,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"no","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130383","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\n