Court Admits Offer Letter In N152m Oak Homes Disputed Property
OpenLife News reports that the presiding Judge of a Federal high court in Lagos Justice Musa Kakaki today admitted one of the three documents tendered as exhibit in a N152 million disputed property trial,between American based Engineer Anthony Ugbebor and a Lagos Property Developer Olukayode Olusanya and his Company Oak Homes Limited.
The document dated February 5, 2024 was the offer letter alleged to have been issued to prospective buyer of the disputed property, the three other documents were rejected because they were photocopies,and their sources were not known
The ruling on the documents followed objections raised during the proceedings on July 20, 2026, when the prosecution sought to tender them through the nominal complainant, Engineer Anthony Ugbebor.
In his ruling, Justice Kakaki said the witness had failed to explain the whereabouts of the original copies of the three rejected documents.
On the February 5, 2024 offer letter, the judge discountenanced the objection of the defence counsels that Ugbebor was not the maker of the document,hence the document was admitted as exhibit.
After the ruling, the Police prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police Monday Omo-Osagie, informed the court that he had an interim application ready for hearing, adding that the defendants had been served and had filed responses.
However, Barrister Adeleke Agboola SAN counsel appearing for the first defendant Olukayode Olusanya told the court that he had received information that Omo-Osagie had retired from the police,therefore sought clarification as to his status if he had obtained fiat from the Inspector General of Police to continue to prosecute the case.
He argued that the application was not ripe for hearing, describing it as an attempt to revisit an issue the court had already decided.
“The case before the court today was a ruling and continuation of trial,therefore the prosecutor should call his witness or close his case, so that the defendant can open his defence” he submitted.
Counsel for Oaks Homes Limited the second defendant, Barristers Jude Ehiedu, also asked the prosecutor to clarify whether he was appearing under a fiat or not He confirmed receipt of the prosecutor’s application but argued that it was an abuse of court process because the court had previously ruled against a similar request.
However,In response, Omo-Osagie maintained that he remained a serving police officer until he was issued a certificate of discharge,and that the defence counsels should produce before the court any discharge certificate if they have any.
He said his application was filed on September 21, 2026, and that the first defendant was served on September 30,2026.
The prosecutor added that the application concerned the nominal complainant’s health and was distinct from an earlier application seeking permission for the witness to testify virtually because he was not resident in Nigeria.
Justice Kakaki, however, said he had not seen the application in the court’s file and directed the prosecutor to check the registry to establish whether it had been properly filed,and stood down the case.
When the case resumed, Omo-Osagie told the court that a search at the registry confirmed that the application had been sent to the court and signed for by one of the registrars of the court.
OMO -Osagie told the court that “My lord, this is not the first time this will be happening; this is the second time in a series. I will really like something to be done,” he said, before presenting another copy of the application to the court.
The prosecutor subsequently moved the motion on notice, dated September 18 and filed on September 21, 2026.
He said the application was supported by a 12-paragraph affidavit and a written address, which he adopted in urging the court to grant the reliefs sought,by allowing virtual hearing because of the ill health of the nominal complainant.
Ehiedu objected to the prosecution’s response to the defendants’ counter-affidavits, arguing that the prosecutor had not filed a reply on points of law.
Omo-Osagie said he had only received the second defendant’s response electronically on Monday.
Counsel for the first defendant, Benson Nwosu, who stood in for Agboola SAN,, argued that the earlier application, which the court dismissed on June 23, 2026, sought virtual testimony because the nominal complainant was outside Nigeria.
He said the prosecution could appeal the earlier decision rather than file another application seeking substantially the same relief.
Nwosu also argued that the prosecution should close its case if the witness could not appear in person.
“The matter can even be adjourned sine die. It is not compulsory that the nominal complainant must testify.
“The prosecution should close its case so that the defendant can take a bite at the cherry,” he said.
He urged the court to dismiss the application, while counsel for the second defendant adopted the first defendant’s arguments and urged the judge to reach the same conclusion.
After listening to the parties, Justice Kakaki adjourned the case till December 3, 2026, for ruling on the application.
At the previous proceedings on July 20, Ugbebor had narrated how he entered into the property transaction with Olukayode Olusanya in November 2017 after receiving assurances that Oak Homes was a reputable developer capable of delivering a retirement home in Nigeria.
He told the court that he signed and returned the agreement by email before making payments in line with the contract.
According to the witness, the agreement was structured around performance milestones, with payments tied to verifiable and satisfactory completion of work at different stages of the project.
Ugbebor said he made four payments between November 2017 and December 2020, totalling N152m, representing 80 per cent of the N190m purchase price for two flats on the second floor of the development.
He described the money as his life savings, equivalent to about $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 told the court.
Ugbebor said the project was scheduled for delivery on February 28, 2019, but construction later stalled, prompting him to send a representative to inspect the site on October 11, 2022.
He said he subsequently petitioned the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 2 Command, Lagos, on December 10, 2023, after suspecting that Olusanya was not handling the transaction as planned.
About Author
