The Federal High Court in Lagos has admitted a February 5, 2024 offer letter into evidence in the ongoing trial of property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his company, Oak Homes Ltd, over an alleged ₦152 million property fraud.
Justice Musa Kakaki delivered the ruling on Tuesday, rejecting three other documents dated January 10, January 11 and December 15, 2024, because they were photocopies and the prosecution witness failed to explain the whereabouts of the originals.
The judge also adjourned the case until December 3, 2026, for a ruling on a prosecution application seeking permission for virtual proceedings on health grounds.
The dispute over the documents followed objections raised during the previous proceedings on July 20, 2026, when the prosecution sought to tender them through the nominal complainant, Anthony Ugbebor.
Court Rejects Three Documents
In his ruling, Justice Kakaki said the witness had failed to explain why the original copies of the three rejected documents were unavailable.
“One of the grounds of the objections of January 10, January 11, and December 15, 2024, was that the documents are photocopies. On July 20, 2026, the witness, through whom the documents were to be tendered, did not give any explanation of where the original documents were,” the judge said.
However, the court rejected an objection to the February 5, 2024 offer letter on the grounds that Ugbebor was not its maker.
“The document dated February 5, 2024, is hereby admitted in evidence,” Justice Kakaki ruled.
Following the decision, prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police Monday Omo-Osagie, informed the court that he had an interim application ready for hearing and that the defendants had been served and filed responses.
Defence Challenges Prosecutor’s Status And Application
Counsel for the first defendant, Adeleke Agboola, SAN, questioned whether Omo-Osagie was still serving in the police, saying he had received information that the prosecutor had retired.
Agboola argued that the prosecutor should clarify whether he was appearing under a fiat, or formal authorisation to prosecute, and complained that his office had not received the interim application.
He also contended that the application was not ready for hearing and sought to revisit an issue the court had already decided.
“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,” Agboola said.
Counsel for the second defendant, Jude Ehiedu, also asked the prosecutor to clarify his status and argued that the application amounted to an abuse of court process because the court had previously rejected a similar request.
Omo-Osagie maintained that he remained a serving police officer until he received a certificate of discharge.
He said the application was filed on September 21, 2026, and that the first defendant was served on September 30.
The prosecutor also explained that the latest application concerned the nominal complainant’s health and differed from an earlier request for virtual testimony because the witness was residing outside Nigeria.
Court Adjourns Ruling On Virtual Proceedings
Justice Kakaki said he had not seen the application in the court file and directed the prosecutor to check the registry to confirm whether it had been properly filed.
Omo-Osagie later informed the court that a search at the registry confirmed the application had been sent to the court and signed for by a registrar identified as Elizabeth.
He subsequently moved the motion on notice, dated September 18 and filed on September 21, 2026. The application was supported by a 12-paragraph affidavit and a written address.
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.
The first defendant’s counsel, Benson Nwosu, who stood in for Agboola, said the court had dismissed an earlier application on June 23, 2026, seeking virtual testimony because Ugbebor was outside Nigeria.
Nwosu argued that the prosecution should appeal the earlier decision rather than file another application seeking substantially the same relief.
He also urged the prosecution to 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.
Counsel for the second defendant adopted the first defendant’s arguments and urged the court to dismiss the application.
After hearing the parties, Justice Kakaki adjourned the case until December 3, 2026, for a ruling on the application.
Complainant Says He Paid ₦152m For Two Flats
During the previous proceedings on July 20, Ugbebor told the court that he entered into the property transaction with Olusanya in November 2017 after receiving assurances that Oak Homes was a reputable developer capable of delivering a retirement home in Nigeria.
He said he signed and returned the agreement by email before making payments in accordance with the contract.
According to Ugbebor, the agreement tied payments to performance milestones and satisfactory completion of different stages of the project.
He testified that he made four payments between November 2017 and December 2020, totalling ₦152 million. The amount represented 80 per cent of the ₦190 million purchase price for two flats on the development’s second floor.
Ugbebor 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 suspiciously, basically taking my patience and simplicity for stupidity,” he told the court.
He said the project was scheduled for delivery on February 28, 2019, but construction later stalled.
Ugbebor testified that he sent a representative to inspect the site on October 11, 2022, before petitioning the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 2 Command, Lagos, on December 10, 2023.
He said he petitioned the police after concluding that Olusanya had fraudulently handled the transaction.
The case remains ongoing, and the allegations against Olusanya and Oak Homes Ltd have yet to be determined in the final judgment.
