Court Reserves Ruling on Admissibility of Key Evidence in N152m Oak Homes Fraud Trial

Wale Igbintade

Justice Musa Kakaki of the Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed October 27 2026, to rule on the admissibility of documents the prosecution seeks to tender in the ongoing trial of property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his company, Oak Homes Ltd, over an alleged N152 million property fraud.

The judge fixed the date after hearing extensive arguments from both the prosecution and the defence on whether four offer letters, allegedly showing attempts by the defendants to resell the disputed properties, should be admitted in evidence.

At Monday’s proceedings, prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police Monday Omo-Osagie, informed the court that the matter was for continuation of trial and that the prosecution was ready to call its third witness.

The prosecution also moved a Motion on Notice dated July 7 and filed on July 8, 2026. Counsel to the first defendant, Adeleke Agboola (SAN), and counsel to the second defendant, Jude Ehiedu, did not oppose the application, which Justice Kakaki granted as prayed.

The prosecution then called the nominal complainant, Anthony Ugbebor, who narrated how he became involved in the transaction.

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.

According to him, he entered into an agreement with the first defendant in November 2017 after receiving assurances that Oak Homes was a reputable developer capable of delivering a retirement home in Nigeria.

He said he accepted the offer by signing and returning the agreement via email before making payments in accordance with the contract.

“The contract was structured as a performance milestone contract. In other words, it was based on verifiable, satisfactory and completed work at various stages of the project from start to finish,” the witness said.

Ugbebor testified that he made four payments between November 2017 and December 2020, totaling N152 million, representing 80 per cent of the N190 million purchase price for two second-floor flats in the development.

He described the money as his life savings, equivalent to about $400,000 at the prevailing exchange rate.

“My income is in dollars. After I made the payments, the defendant started acting in a suspicious manner, basically taking my patience and simplicity for stupidity,” he told the court.

The witness said the project was scheduled for delivery on February 28, 2019. However, after construction stalled, he sent a representative to inspect the site on October 11, 2022.

As he began recounting what his representative reported, Agboola objected, arguing that the witness was giving hearsay evidence.

“He can only testify to what he personally did, not what someone else did,” Agboola submitted.

Justice Kakaki observed that the testimony appeared to be hearsay.

In response, Omo-Osagie argued that the Evidence Act recognises exceptions to the hearsay rule and urged the court to allow the evidence.

Continuing his testimony, Ugbebor said repeated attempts to contact the defendant by telephone and email proved unsuccessful.

“It then occurred to me that the defendant appeared to be engaging in fraudulent activities. It was on that basis that I reported the matter to the police,” he said.

He further alleged that the defendant claimed to have sold the properties without his authorisation and that he later discovered several offer letters showing the same apartments being marketed to other prospective buyers at significantly higher prices.

According to him, one offer letter dated January 10, 2024, offered the properties for N1.23 billion, while another dated January 11, 2024, quoted N950 million.

A third letter dated February 5, 2024, listed the second-floor flats at N360 million each, while by December 15, 2024, the same units were allegedly being offered for N560 million each.

Summarising his complaint, Ugbebor told the court “The defendant is trying to forcefully dispossess me of my property, reclaim it, put it back on the market at a price determined by him, sell it and pocket the proceeds, all without my consent or authorisation.”

He added: “I gave the developer my life savings after living in America for over 38 years. I paid him N152 million, equivalent to about $400,000.”

The witness identified his statement to the police, which was admitted without objection and marked as Exhibit 3.

He also identified payment receipts issued by the defendants, which were equally admitted in evidence without objection.

However, when the prosecution sought to tender the four offer letters allegedly showing attempts to resell the properties, Agboola objected.

The senior advocate argued that the documents were inadmissible because they were neither authored by the witness nor addressed to him.

“None of these documents was authored by this witness, and none was addressed to him,” Agboola 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 testify.

Agboola also argued that the documents were inadmissible because they were made while judicial proceedings were pending.

“Section 83 of the Evidence Act prohibits the admissibility of documents made during the pendency of proceedings.

These documents were all made in 2024 when both the criminal charge and the civil case were already pending. Even if the makers were present, the documents should not be admitted,” he argued.

Ehiedu aligned himself with the submissions of counsel to the first defendant.

Opposing the objections, Omo-Osagie urged the court to admit the documents, relying on Section 15 of the Evidence Act. He argued that the offer letters were directly relevant to the issues before the court.

“A cursory look at these documents will show that the offer letters were issued on Oak Homes’ letterhead and signed by the first defendant,” the prosecutor submitted.

He also relied on Supreme Court authorities in support of his application.

After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Kakaki adjourned until October 27 and 28, 2026, for ruling on the admissibility of the disputed offer letters and for continuation of trial.