Judges to Decide Whether Controversial Papers Can Be Used as Evidence in Oak Homes Case

n n

Justice Musa Kakaki of the Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed October 27-28, 2026, to rule on the admissibility of documents sought to be tendered by the prosecution in the ongoing trial of property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his company, Oak Homes Ltd, over an alleged N152m property fraud.J

n

The judge fixed the dates on Monday, after hearing arguments from both the prosecution and the defence on whether four offer letters allegedly showing attempts to resell the disputed properties could be admitted in evidence.

n

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.

n

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. Justice Kakaki subsequently granted the application as prayed.

n

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

n

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.

n

He said 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.

n

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

n

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.”

n

He told the court that he made four payments between November 2017 and December 2020, amounting to N152m, representing 80 per cent of the N190m purchase price for two flats on the second floor of the development.

n

The witness said the money represented his life savings, equivalent to about US$400,000 at the prevailing exchange rates.

n

“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.

n

According to him, the project was expected to be delivered on February 28, 2019, but after construction stalled, he sent a representative to inspect the site on October 11, 2022.

n

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

n

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

n

Justice Kakaki observed that the testimony appeared to be hearsay.

n

However, Omo-Osagie responded that there are recognised exceptions under the Evidence Act where hearsay evidence is admissible, urging the court to allow the testimony.

n

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

n

“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.

n

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

n

According to him, one offer letter dated January 10, 2024, offered the property for a total of N1.230bn, while another dated January 11, 2024, quoted N950m. A third letter dated February 5, 2024, increased the prices further, with the second-floor flats listed at N360m each.

n

He also claimed that by December 15, 2024, the defendant attempted to sell the same units for N560m each.

n

The witness 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 property and put the money in his pocket, all without my consent and authorisation.

n

“I gave the developer my life savings after staying in America for over 38 years. I paid him N152m, equivalent to about US$400,000.”

n

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

n

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

n

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

n

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

n

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

n

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 maker of the documents ought to be called as a witness.

n

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

n

“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.

n

Ehiedu aligned himself with the submissions of the first defendant’s counsel.

n

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

n

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

n

“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.

n

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

n

After listening to both sides, Justice Kakaki fixed the ruling on the admissibility of the disputed offer letters until October 27 and 28, 2026 and adjourned the matter for continuation of trial.

n n