Court reserves ruling on disputed Oak Homes documents

Court reserves ruling on disputed Oak Homes documents

By Akin Kuponiyi

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

The date was fixed after hearing submissions from the prosecution and defence on whether four offer letters, allegedly showing attempts to resell the disputed properties, could be admitted as evidence.

During the proceedings, prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police Monday Omo-Osagie, called the third prosecution witness for the continuation of the trial.

The witness, who is also the nominal complainant, Engineer Anthony Ugbebor, travelled from the United States of America to testify.

Ugbebor told the court that he petitioned the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 2 Command, Lagos, on December 10, 2023, after concluding that Olukayode Olusanya had fraudulently handled the property transaction.

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

According to him, he accepted the offer by signing and returning the agreement via email before making payments in line with the contract.

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

He told the court that he made four payments between November 2017 and December 2020, amounting to N152 million, representing 80 per cent of the N190 million purchase price for two second-floor flats in the building.

He said the money represented his life savings, equivalent to about 400,000 US dollars at the prevailing exchange rate.

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

According to him, the project was due for delivery on February 28, 2019. After construction stalled, he sent a representative to inspect the site on October 11, 2022.

However, when Ugbebor began referring to conversations between himself and his representative, defence counsel, Adeleke Agboola (SAN), objected, arguing that the witness was giving hearsay evidence.

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

Justice Kakaki observed that the testimony appeared to be hearsay.

However, Omo-Osagie argued that there were recognised exceptions under the Evidence Act that permitted the admission of hearsay evidence and urged the court to allow the testimony.

Ugbebor further testified that repeated efforts to reach the defendant by telephone and email were unsuccessful.

“It now occurred to me that it appears the defendant is embarking on fraudulent activities. It was based on this that I reported the matter to the police,” he said.

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

He further alleged that by December 15, 2024, the defendant attempted to sell the same units for N560 million each.

According to him, one offer letter dated January 10, 2024, offered the properties for a total of 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.

Summarising his complaint, Ugbebor told the court:

“The defendant is trying to forcefully expel me from my property, reclaim it, put it back in the market at a price determined by him, sell the properties and put the money in his pocket, all without my consent and authorisation.”

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

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

He also identified payment receipts issued by the defendants, which were 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.

He 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 of them 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 be called as witnesses.

Agboola also relied on Section 83 of the Evidence Act, arguing that documents made while judicial proceedings were pending were generally inadmissible.

“Section 83 of the Evidence Act prohibits the admissibility of any document made when proceedings are pending. These documents were all made in 2024 when both this criminal charge and the civil case were already pending. Even if the maker were present, the documents should not be admitted,” he argued.

Counsel for the second defendant, Jude Ehiedu, aligned himself with the submissions of the first defendant’s counsel.

Responding, Omo-Osagie urged the court to dismiss the objections.

He relied on Section 15 of the Evidence Act, arguing that the documents were directly relevant to the facts in issue.

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

He also cited Supreme Court decisions in support of his argument and urged the court to admit the documents in evidence.

After hearing both sides, Justice Kakaki adjourned the matter until October 27, 2026, for a ruling on the admissibility of the disputed offer