Justice Musa Kakaki of the Federal High Court in Lagos has admitted a February 5, 2024, supply letter into proof within the ongoing trial of property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his firm, Oak Homes Limited.
Olusanya is being tried earlier than the court docket over allegations of N152 million in property fraud.
The choose, nevertheless, rejected three different paperwork dated January 10, January 11 and December 15, 2024, holding that they had been photocopies and that the witness who sought to tender them had not adequately defined the whereabouts of the originals.
Justice Kakaki additionally adjourned the case till December 3, 2026, for a ruling on a prosecution software looking for digital proceedings on well being grounds.
The ruling on the paperwork adopted objections raised through the earlier proceedings on July 20, 2026, when the prosecution sought to tender them by way of the nominal complainant, Anthony Ugbebor.
In his ruling, Justice Kakaki mentioned the witness had failed to elucidate the whereabouts of the unique copies of the three rejected paperwork.
“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 choose mentioned.
On the February 5, 2024, supply letter, the choose rejected the objection that Ugbebor was not the maker of the doc.
“I also considered the submission of counsel on the document dated February 5, 2024, an objection of admissibility, that the nominal complainant is not the maker of the document, as there is no such provision. The document dated February 5, 2024, is hereby admitted in evidence,” he mentioned.
Following the ruling, prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police Monday Omo-Osagie, knowledgeable the court docket that he had an interim software prepared for listening to, including that the defendants had been served and had filed their responses.
However, counsel for 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 mentioned the prosecutor wanted to make clear whether or not he was showing underneath a fiat, including that he had not been served with the interim software at his workplace.
He mentioned that when he knowledgeable the prosecutor that morning that his workplace must have been served, the prosecutor informed him he was not obliged to take action, including that he had served the primary defendant.
“I was not served with the interim application by the prosecutor. When I informed him this morning that he ought to have served my office, he told me that he was not obliged to serve me, adding that he had served the first defendant,” Agboola mentioned.
He argued that the applying was not ripe for listening to and added that it was an try to revisit a difficulty the court docket had already determined.
“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 famous.
Counsel for the second defendant, Jude Ehiedu, additionally requested the prosecutor to make clear whether or not he was showing underneath a fiat.
Ehiedu confirmed receipt of the applying however argued that it amounted to an abuse of court docket course of as a result of the court docket had beforehand dominated towards an identical request.
In response, Omo-Osagie maintained that he remained a serving police officer till he was issued a certificates of discharge.
He mentioned the applying was filed on September 21, 2026, and that the primary defendant was served on September 30.
“I’m a serving police officer till I’m issued a certificates of discharge. I’m nonetheless in service. I have no idea the place the SAN obtained his data from or whether or not he has my discharge certificates.
“I’m conscious that that is an interim software and that the substantive matter remains to be pending. It is even a part of the grounds of our software that the nominal complainant just isn’t right here.
“The SAN confronted me this morning and requested why I didn’t serve his workplace and served the primary defendant. I served the primary defendant on September 30, 2026, and that’s how I’ve been serving the defendant. If the defendant didn’t carry it to him on time, that’s not my fault.
“They served me electronically yesterday (Monday), and I accepted the service. We filed this application on September 21, and the registrars are aware.”
The prosecutor added that the applying involved the nominal complainant’s well being and was distinct from an earlier software looking for permission for the witness to testify just about as a result of he was not resident in Nigeria.
Justice Kakaki, nevertheless, mentioned he had not seen the applying within the court docket file and directed the prosecutor to examine the registry to ascertain whether or not it had been correctly filed.
When the case resumed, Omo-Osagie informed the court docket {that a} search on the registry had confirmed that the applying had been despatched to the court docket and signed for by a registrar in Kakaki’s court docket recognized as Elizabeth.
“My lord, this is not the first time this will be happening; this is the second time in a series. I would really like something to be done,” he mentioned earlier than presenting one other copy of the applying to the court docket.
The prosecutor subsequently moved the movement on discover, dated September 18 and filed on September 21, 2026.
He mentioned the applying was supported by a 12-paragraph affidavit and a written deal with, which he adopted in urging the court docket 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 legislation.
Omo-Osagie mentioned he had acquired the primary and second defendants’ responses electronically solely on Monday.
Counsel for the primary defendant, Benson Nwosu, who stood in for Agboola, argued that the sooner software, which the court docket dismissed on June 23, 2026, sought digital testimony as a result of the nominal complainant was exterior Nigeria.
He mentioned the prosecution might attraction the sooner resolution moderately than file one other software looking for considerably the identical reduction.
Nwosu additionally argued that the prosecution ought to shut its case if the witness couldn’t seem in particular 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 mentioned.
He urged the court docket to dismiss the applying, whereas counsel for the second defendant adopted the primary defendant’s arguments and urged the choose to succeed in the identical conclusion.
After listening to the events, Justice Kakaki adjourned the case till December 3, 2026, for a ruling on the applying.
At the earlier proceedings on July 20, Ugbebor had narrated how 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 house in Nigeria.
He informed the court docket that he signed and returned the settlement by e-mail earlier than making funds in accordance with the contract.
According to the witness, the settlement was structured round efficiency milestones, with funds tied to verifiable and passable completion of labor at completely different levels of the venture.
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 2 flats on the second ground of the event.
He described the cash as his life financial savings, equal to about $400,000 on the prevailing trade charges.
“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 informed the court docket.
Ugbebor mentioned the venture was scheduled for supply on February 28, 2019, however building later stalled, prompting him to ship a consultant to examine the location on October 11, 2022.
He acknowledged that he subsequently petitioned the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 2 Command, Lagos, on December 10, 2023, after concluding that Olusanya had fraudulently dealt with the transaction.
We’ve obtained the sting. Get real-time reviews, breaking scoops, and unique angles delivered straight to your telephone. Don’t accept stale information. Join LEADERSHIP NEWS on WhatsApp for twenty-four/7 updates →
