N152m Property row: Engineer takes Oak Homes to Appeal Court

By Akin Kuponiyi

A Nigerian-American engineer, Anthony Ehiedu Ugbebor, has approached the Court of Appeal to challenge the June 15, 2026 judgment of the Lagos State High Court in his N152 million property dispute with Oak Homes Multinational Services Limited.

In a nine-ground Notice of Appeal filed before the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal, Ugbebor is seeking to overturn the judgment delivered by Justice Akingbola George, which held that his property purchase agreement with Oak Homes and its Managing Director, Olukayode Olusanya, had been extinguished by the doctrine of novation.

The High Court had ordered Oak Homes to refund the N152 million paid by Ugbebor for two luxury apartments located at 14A Musa Yar’Adua Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, while dismissing his counterclaim seeking specific performance of the contract or, alternatively, damages.

Dissatisfied with the decision, Ugbebor argued that the trial judge misapplied settled principles of contract law, ignored material evidence, wrongly dismissed his counterclaim and erroneously refused his claim for specific performance.

The dispute originated from a suit filed by Oak Homes against Ugbebor and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), alleging trespass on two second-floor, three-bedroom apartments at the Victoria Island property.

Although the High Court dismissed most of the developer’s claims, it ruled that the conduct of both parties amounted to novation, thereby terminating the original agreement and limiting Ugbebor’s remedy to a refund of the purchase price.

In his appeal, Ugbebor asked the appellate court to restore the original property sale agreement, declare it valid and enforceable, and compel Oak Homes to complete and deliver the apartments in line with the contract.

He contended that the trial court wrongly placed the burden of proving payment on him instead of Oak Homes, which alleged breach of contract. According to him, the agreement tied payments to construction milestones rather than fixed calendar dates.

Ugbebor maintained that he had already paid about 80 per cent of the purchase price, with 35 per cent due only after completion of the roofing stage and the final 20 per cent payable upon completion of the apartments. He argued that Oak Homes failed to reach those agreed construction milestones.

The appellant also challenged the finding of novation, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Heritage Bank Ltd v. Ajugwo, arguing that a new contract cannot be inferred merely from the conduct of parties without clear evidence of an agreement to replace the original contract.

He further faulted the dismissal of his counterclaim, insisting that contracts relating to land ordinarily attract the equitable remedy of specific performance and that the trial court failed to determine the issue of frustration of contract despite evidence and submissions by both parties.

Ugbebor also argued that the judgment failed to properly evaluate his claims for general damages, special damages and specific performance, while contradicting itself by acknowledging breaches allegedly committed by Oak Homes but refusing all the reliefs sought in his counterclaim.

He is urging the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment in its entirety, restore the validity of the original property sale agreement and compel Oak Homes Multinational Services Limited to honour its contractual obligations.