•Court admits supply letter, rejects three different paperwork
Wale Igbintade
The prosecution has renewed its bid to have the nominal complainant within the alleged N152 million property fraud case involving property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his firm, Oak Homes Limited, testify nearly, regardless of an earlier ruling rejecting an analogous request.
Justice Musa Kakaki of the Federal High Court in Lagos has adjourned the case till December 3, 2026, for a ruling on the contemporary utility, which the prosecution mentioned was necessitated by the complainant’s well being situation.
The choose admitted a February 5, 2024 supply letter into proof however rejected three different paperwork dated January 10, January 11 and December 15, 2024, as a result of the prosecution witness had failed to elucidate the whereabouts of their authentic copies.
The case arose from allegations that Olusanya and Oak Homes defrauded the complainant, Anthony Ugbebor, of N152 million paid in direction of the acquisition of two flats in a growth scheduled for completion in February 2019.
The contemporary utility for digital testimony triggered a disagreement between the prosecution and the defence, with the defendants’ attorneys arguing that the court docket had already rejected an analogous request and that the prosecution ought to shut its case if the complainant couldn’t testify bodily.
Prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police Monday Omo-Osagie, knowledgeable the court docket that he had an utility prepared for listening to, including that the defendants had been served and had filed responses.
However, counsel to the primary defendant, Adeleke Agboola, SAN, questioned the prosecutor’s standing, saying he had acquired data that Omo-Osagie had retired from the police.
Agboola requested the prosecutor to make clear whether or not he was showing underneath a fiat, including that he had not been served with the appliance.
He additionally argued that the appliance was not ripe for listening to and amounted to an try to reopen a difficulty already decided by the court docket.
“The case before the court today was a ruling and continuation of trial. He should call his witness or close his case, so that the defendant can open his case,” he mentioned.
Counsel to the second defendant, Jude Ehiedu, additionally questioned whether or not Omo-Osagie was showing underneath a fiat.
In response, Omo-Osagie maintained that he remained a serving police officer till he was issued a certificates of discharge.
He mentioned the appliance was filed on September 21, 2026, and that the primary defendant was served on September 30.
The prosecutor defined that the contemporary utility was primarily based on the complainant’s well being situation, distinguishing it from the sooner request, which sought permission for digital testimony as a result of the witness was not resident in Nigeria.
Justice Kakaki, nevertheless, mentioned he had not seen the appliance within the court docket file and directed the prosecution to examine with the registry to determine whether or not it had been correctly filed.
When proceedings resumed, Omo-Osagie knowledgeable the court docket {that a} search on the registry confirmed that the appliance had been despatched to the court docket and signed for by certainly one of its registrars.
Expressing frustration, the prosecutor mentioned the incident was not the primary of its variety.
“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 mentioned earlier than presenting one other copy of the appliance.
Omo-Osagie subsequently moved the movement on discover, dated September 18 and filed on September 21, 2026.
He instructed the court docket that the appliance was supported by a 12-paragraph affidavit and a written tackle, which he adopted in urging the choose to grant the reliefs sought.
Ehiedu objected to the prosecution’s response to the defendants’ counter-affidavits, arguing that the prosecutor had not filed a reply on factors of regulation.
Omo-Osagie defined that he had acquired the second defendant’s response electronically solely on Monday.
Benson Nwosu, who appeared for the primary defendant instead of Agboola, argued that the sooner utility, dismissed by the court docket on June 23, 2026, had sought digital testimony as a result of the complainant was exterior Nigeria.
He contended that the prosecution ought to enchantment the sooner ruling relatively than file one other utility searching for considerably the identical aid.
Nwosu additional argued that the prosecution ought to shut its case if the complainant couldn’t seem in individual.
He urged the court docket to dismiss the contemporary utility. Ehiedu adopted his arguments and urged the choose to achieve the identical conclusion.
After listening to the events, Justice Kakaki adjourned the matter till December 3, 2026, for a ruling on the appliance.
On the documentary proof, the choose admitted the February 5, 2024 supply letter after contemplating the defence objection that Ugbebor was not the maker of the doc.
Justice Kakaki held that the objection couldn’t be sustained on that floor.
“I also considered the submission of counsel on the document dated February 5, 2024, an objection of admissibility, that PW4 is not the maker of the document, as there is no such provision. The document dated February 5, 2024, is hereby admitted in evidence,” the choose mentioned.
However, he rejected the three different paperwork as a result of the witness had failed to elucidate what had occurred to their originals.
The objections have been raised throughout the proceedings on July 20, 2026, when the prosecution sought to tender the paperwork by Ugbebor.
Earlier in his testimony, Ugbebor instructed the court docket that he entered into the property transaction with Olusanya in November 2017 after receiving assurances that Oak Homes was a good developer able to delivering a retirement dwelling in Nigeria.
He mentioned he signed and returned the settlement by e mail earlier than making funds in accordance with its phrases.
According to him, the settlement tied funds to efficiency milestones, requiring verifiable and passable completion of labor at completely different phases of the event earlier than additional funds might be made.
Ugbebor mentioned he made 4 funds between November 2017 and December 2020, totalling N152 million, representing 80 per cent of the N190 million buy value for two flats on the second flooring of the event.
He described the cash as his life financial savings, equal to roughly $400,000 on the prevailing change charges.
The complainant mentioned the property was scheduled for supply on February 28, 2019, however development subsequently stalled.
He mentioned he despatched a consultant to examine the location on October 11, 2022, earlier than petitioning the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 2 Command, Lagos, on December 10, 2023, after concluding that Olusanya had fraudulently dealt with the transaction.
The allegations stay topic to the dedication of the court docket.
