•Court admits offer letter, rejects three other documents
Wale Igbintade
The prosecution has renewed its bid to have the nominal complainant in the alleged N152 million property fraud case involving property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his company, Oak Homes Limited, testify virtually, despite an earlier ruling rejecting a similar request.
Justice Musa Kakaki of the Federal High Court in Lagos has adjourned the case until December 3, 2026, for a ruling on the fresh application, which the prosecution said was necessitated by the complainant’s health condition.
The judge admitted a February 5, 2024 offer letter into evidence but rejected three other documents dated January 10, January 11 and December 15, 2024, because the prosecution witness had failed to explain the whereabouts of their original copies.
The case arose from allegations that Olusanya and Oak Homes defrauded the complainant, Anthony Ugbebor, of N152 million paid towards the purchase of two flats in a development scheduled for completion in February 2019.
The fresh application for virtual testimony triggered a disagreement between the prosecution and the defence, with the defendants’ lawyers arguing that the court had already rejected a similar request and that the prosecution should close its case if the complainant could not testify physically.
Prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police Monday Omo-Osagie, informed the court that he had an application ready for hearing, adding that the defendants had been served and had filed responses.
However, counsel to the first defendant, Adeleke Agboola, SAN, questioned the prosecutor’s status, saying he had received information that Omo-Osagie had retired from the police.
Agboola asked the prosecutor to clarify whether he was appearing under a fiat, adding that he had not been served with the application.
He also argued that the application was not ripe for hearing and amounted to an attempt to reopen an issue already determined by the court.
“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 said.
Counsel to the second defendant, Jude Ehiedu, also questioned whether Omo-Osagie was appearing under a fiat.
In response, Omo-Osagie maintained that he remained a serving police officer until he was issued 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 explained that the fresh application was based on the complainant’s health condition, distinguishing it from the earlier request, which sought permission for virtual testimony because the witness was not resident in Nigeria.
Justice Kakaki, however, said he had not seen the application in the court file and directed the prosecution to check with the registry to establish whether it had been properly filed.
When proceedings resumed, Omo-Osagie informed the court that a search at the registry confirmed that the application had been sent to the court and signed for by one of its registrars.
Expressing frustration, the prosecutor said the incident was not the first of its kind.
“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.
Omo-Osagie subsequently moved the motion on notice, dated September 18 and filed on September 21, 2026.
He told the court that the application was supported by a 12-paragraph affidavit and a written address, which he adopted in urging the judge 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 points of law.
Omo-Osagie explained that he had received the second defendant’s response electronically only on Monday.
Benson Nwosu, who appeared for the first defendant in place of Agboola, argued that the earlier application, dismissed by the court on June 23, 2026, had sought virtual testimony because the complainant was outside Nigeria.
He contended that the prosecution should appeal the earlier ruling rather than file another application seeking substantially the same relief.
Nwosu further argued that the prosecution should close its case if the complainant could not appear in person.
He urged the court to dismiss the fresh application. Ehiedu adopted his arguments and urged the judge to reach the same conclusion.
After listening to the parties, Justice Kakaki adjourned the matter until December 3, 2026, for a ruling on the application.
On the documentary evidence, the judge admitted the February 5, 2024 offer letter after considering the defence objection that Ugbebor was not the maker of the document.
Justice Kakaki held that the objection could not be sustained on that ground.
“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 judge said.
However, he rejected the three other documents because the witness had failed to explain what had happened to their originals.
The objections were raised during the proceedings on July 20, 2026, when the prosecution sought to tender the documents through Ugbebor.
Earlier in his testimony, 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 its terms.
According to him, the agreement tied payments to performance milestones, requiring verifiable and satisfactory completion of work at different stages of the development before further payments could be made.
Ugbebor said he made four payments between November 2017 and December 2020, totalling N152 million, representing 80 per cent of the N190 million purchase price for two flats on the second floor of the development.
He described the money as his life savings, equivalent to approximately $400,000 at the prevailing exchange rates.
The complainant said the property was scheduled for delivery on February 28, 2019, but construction subsequently stalled.
He said 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, after concluding that Olusanya had fraudulently handled the transaction.
The allegations remain subject to the determination of the court.