Disputed letters show flats offered for resale
The Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed October 27 and 28, 2026, to rule on whether four offer letters allegedly showing attempts to resell disputed properties are admissible in the ongoing trial of property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his company, Oak Homes Limited, over an alleged ₦152 million property fraud.
Justice Musa Kakaki fixed the dates on Monday after hearing arguments from the prosecution and defence concerning the documents, which the nominal complainant alleged showed that the same apartments he paid for were subsequently offered to other prospective buyers at significantly higher prices.
At the resumed proceedings, prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police Monday Omo-Osagie, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for continuation of trial and that the prosecution was ready to call its third witness.
The prosecution first moved a motion on notice dated July 7 and filed on July 8, 2026. Counsel to Olusanya, Adeleke Agboola, SAN, and counsel to Oak Homes, Jude Ehiedu, did not oppose the application, prompting Justice Kakaki to grant it as prayed.
The prosecution thereafter called the nominal complainant, Anthony Ugbebor, who narrated how he entered into the property transaction and later petitioned the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 2 Command, Lagos, on December 10, 2023, after concluding that the transaction had allegedly been fraudulently handled.
Ugbebor told the court that he entered into an agreement with Olusanya in November 2017 after receiving assurances that Oak Homes was a reputable developer capable of delivering a retirement home for him in Nigeria.
He said he accepted the offer by signing and returning the agreement through email before making payments in accordance with the terms of the contract.
According to the witness, the agreement was structured as a performance-milestone contract, meaning that payments were to be made upon the satisfactory completion and verification of various stages of construction.
“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 testified.
Ugbebor said he made four payments between November 2017 and December 2020, totalling ₦152 million, representing 80 per cent of the ₦190 million purchase price for two flats on the second floor of the development.
He told the court that the money represented his life savings and was equivalent to approximately $400,000 at the prevailing exchange rates.
“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 said.
The witness testified that the project was expected to be delivered by February 28, 2019, but construction allegedly stalled. He said he consequently sent a representative to inspect the site on October 11, 2022.
When Ugbebor began recounting conversations involving the representative, Agboola objected, arguing that the testimony amounted to hearsay because the witness could only testify about matters within his personal knowledge.
“He can only testify as to what he did and not what someone else did,” the senior lawyer submitted.
Justice Kakaki observed that the evidence appeared to be hearsay. Omo-Osagie, however, argued that the Evidence Act recognised exceptions under which hearsay evidence could be admitted and urged the court to allow the testimony.
Ugbebor further said repeated attempts to contact Olusanya through telephone calls and emails were unsuccessful, leading him to suspect that the transaction had become fraudulent.
“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 defendants claimed to have sold the properties without his consent and that he later discovered several offer letters indicating that the same apartments had been marketed to other buyers at substantially higher prices.
According to him, one offer letter dated January 10, 2024, placed the total price of the properties at ₦1.230 billion, while another dated January 11, 2024, quoted ₦950 million.
He said a third offer letter dated February 5, 2024, listed the second-floor flats at ₦360 million each, while another document dated December 15, 2024, allegedly offered the same units for ₦560 million each.
“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 property and put the money in his pocket, all without my consent and authorisation,” Ugbebor told the court.
“I gave the developer my life savings after staying in America for over 38 years. I paid him ₦152 million, equivalent to about $400,000.”
The witness identified the statement he made to the police, which was admitted without objection as Exhibit 3. He also identified receipts issued by the defendants for the payments, and the documents were admitted without objection.
A legal dispute arose when the prosecution sought to tender the four offer letters allegedly showing attempts to resell the properties.
Agboola objected to their admission, arguing that none of the documents was authored by Ugbebor or addressed to him.
“None of these documents was authored by this witness, and none of them was addressed to him,” he submitted.
The senior lawyer further argued that at least three of the documents were photocopies and that, under Section 83(1)(b) of the Evidence Act, their maker ought to be called to testify before they could be admitted.
He also relied on Section 83 of the Evidence Act to contend that documents made while judicial proceedings were pending were generally inadmissible.
According to him, the documents were created in 2024 when both the criminal proceedings and a related civil action were already pending.
“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,” Agboola argued.
Ehiedu, representing Oak Homes, adopted the arguments made on behalf of the first defendant and urged the court to reject the offer letters.
Omo-Osagie opposed the objections and asked the court to admit the documents, relying on Section 15 of the Evidence Act and arguing that they were directly relevant to the issues in dispute.
“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 said.
He also cited Supreme Court decisions which he said supported the admissibility of the documents and urged the court to overrule the defence objections.
After hearing the parties, Justice Kakaki adjourned the case until October 27 and 28, 2026, for ruling on the admissibility of the four offer letters and continuation of trial.
Olusanya and Oak Homes have not been convicted of any offence, and the allegations against them remain subject to determination by the court.
In this article