Oak Homes and its Managing Director, Olukayode Olusanya,
<h4>N152m Property Dispute: Nigerian-American Engineer Appeals High Court Judgment Against Oak Home</h4>
<p> ;</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://openlife.ng/">OpenLife Nigeria</a></strong> reports that an 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.<br />
In a nine-ground Notice of Appeal filed at the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal, Ugbebor is seeking an order setting aside 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.<br />
The High Court had ordered Oak Homes to refund the N152 million paid by Ugbebor for two luxury apartments located at 14A Musa Yar&#8217;Adua Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, and dismissed his counterclaim seeking specific performance or, alternatively, damages.<br />
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.<br />
The dispute arose 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.</p>
<figure id="attachment_36127" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-36127" style="width: 300px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36127" src="https://openlife.ng/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/696996-300x276.jpg" alt="N152m Property Dispute: Nigerian-American Engineer Appeals High Court Judgment Against Oak Home" width="300" height="276" /><figcaption id="caption-attachment-36127" class="wp-caption-text"><em><strong>Oak Homes and its Managing Director, Olukayode Olusanya,</strong></em></figcaption></figure>
<p>Although the High Court dismissed most of the developer&#8217;s claims, it held that the parties&#8217; conduct had effectively terminated their original agreement through novation. It consequently ordered the refund of the N152 million already paid by Ugbebor but declined his request for the completion and delivery of the apartments.<br />
In the notice of appeal filed before the court by Barrister Nasir Salawu, Ugbebor urged the appellate court to restore the original agreement, declaring that it remains valid and enforceable, and compel Oak Homes to fulfil its contractual obligations.<br />
One of his principal grounds of appeal is that the trial judge wrongly shifted the burden of proving payment to him instead of Oak Homes, which alleged breach of contract.<br />
According to the Notice of Appeal, the court erred in holding that he failed to make payments within the contractual timeline despite evidence showing that the payment schedule was tied to construction milestones rather than fixed calendar dates.<br />
Ugbebor maintained that under the agreement, 35 per cent of the purchase price became payable upon completion of the roofing stage, while the final 20 per cent was due only after completion of the apartments.<br />
He argued that the agreement did not stipulate fixed payment dates and that he had already paid about 80 per cent of the purchase price, even though the developer allegedly failed to reach the agreed construction milestones.<br />
The appellant further contended that the trial judge misconstrued the payment provisions and ignored unchallenged evidence showing that substantial payments had been made despite Oak Homes&#8217; inability to complete the project.<br />
He also argued that, under the Evidence Act, the burden of proving non-payment rested on Oak Homes as the party alleging breach, and not on him.<br />
Justice Akingbola George had ruled that the conduct of both parties created a new contractual relationship that extinguished the original agreement. However, Ugbebor argued that the finding was inconsistent with established Nigerian contract law.<br />
Relying on the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in Heritage Bank Ltd v. Ajugwo, he submitted that novation cannot be inferred merely from the conduct of parties. According to him, there must be a clear agreement by all parties to substitute the original contract with a new one, together with a clear intention to extinguish the earlier contractual obligations.<br />
He maintained that no witness testified to the existence of such an agreement and that no documentary evidence supported the finding of novation. Rather, he argued that the parties&#8217; conduct merely reflected delayed performance and allegations of breach, not the creation of a fresh contract.<br />
Ugbebor also faulted the trial court for dismissing his counterclaim for specific performance despite finding that the developer attempted to profit from the alleged breach of the agreement.<br />
He argued that contracts relating to land ordinarily attract the equitable remedy of specific performance because monetary compensation may not adequately compensate an innocent purchaser.<br />
According to him, the court also failed to evaluate evidence showing that he remained ready and willing to perform his obligations under the agreement—an essential requirement for granting specific performance.<br />
The appellant further complained that the trial court failed to determine the issue of frustration of contract, even though both parties pleaded it, led evidence on it, and extensively addressed the issue in their final written addresses.<br />
He argued that the judge made no findings on whether any frustrating event occurred or fundamentally altered the contractual obligations of the parties, thereby failing to determine all issues submitted for adjudication.<br />
Ugbebor equally challenged the dismissal of his counterclaim, arguing that the court merely concluded that it had not been proved without separately evaluating each relief sought.<br />
He contended that the judgment contained no proper analysis of the evidence relating to his claims for general damages, special damages, and specific performance.<br />
The appellant further argued that the court contradicted itself by acknowledging breaches allegedly committed by Oak Homes while refusing all the reliefs sought in his counterclaim.<br />
He maintained that the refusal to award general damages was erroneous because such damages naturally flow from a proven breach of contract.<br />
Consequently, Ugbebor urged 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 to honour its contractual obligation</p>

Sir Steve Adehi Congratulates Fourth Degree Knights Of St. Mulumba On Admission OpenLife Nigeria…
Tony Elumelu Exits UBA Chairmanship August OpenLife reports that Tony Elumelu is expected to…
Why I Dumped APC---Senator Iyabo Obasanjo OpenLife Nigeria reports that former Senator who represented…
Governor Expresses Frustrations OpenLife Nigeria reports that the governor of Ebonyi State, Francis Ogbonna Nwifuru,…
Principles Of Love And Not Self Centredness Will Reduce Insecurity OpenLife Nigeria reports that…
Emirates Marks Significant Milestone OpenLife Nigeria reports that Emirates is marking a significant milestone in…
This website uses cookies.