The Federal High Court in Lagos has admitted an offer letter as evidence in a N152 million disputed property trial involving American-based engineer Anthony Ugbebor, Lagos property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his company, Oak Homes Limited.
Justice Musa Kakaki admitted the document, dated February 5, 2024, while rejecting three other documents tendered by the prosecution because they were photocopies and their sources had not been established.
The ruling followed objections raised during proceedings on July 20, 2026, when the prosecution sought to tender the documents through the nominal complainant, Ugbebor.
In his ruling, Justice Kakaki said the witness had failed to explain the whereabouts of the original copies of the three rejected documents.
However, the judge overruled the defence’s objection to the February 5, 2024, offer letter, which was based on the argument that Ugbebor was not the maker of the document. The judge subsequently admitted it as an exhibit.
After the ruling, the police prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police Monday Omo-Osagie, informed the court that he had an interlocutory application ready for hearing. He added that the defendants had been served and had filed their responses.
However, Adeleke Agboola, SAN, counsel to the first defendant, Olusanya, told the court that he had received information that Omo-Osagie had retired from the police. He sought clarification on the prosecutor’s status and whether he had obtained a fiat from the Inspector-General of Police to continue prosecuting the case.
Agboola argued that the application was not ripe for hearing, describing it as an attempt to revisit an issue the court had already decided.
“The case before the court today was a ruling and continuation of trial, therefore the prosecutor should call his witness or close his case, so that the defendant can open his defence,” he submitted.
Counsel for the second defendant, Oak Homes Limited, Jude Ehiedu, also asked the prosecutor to clarify whether he was appearing under a fiat. He confirmed receipt of the prosecution’s application but argued that it amounted to an abuse of court process because the court had previously ruled against a similar request.
In response, Omo-Osagie maintained that he remained a serving police officer until he was issued a certificate of discharge. He challenged the defence counsel to produce any such certificate before the court.
The prosecutor said his application was filed on September 21, 2026, and that the first defendant was served on September 30, 2026.
He added that the application concerned the nominal complainant’s health and was distinct from an earlier application seeking permission for the witness to testify virtually because he was not resident in Nigeria.
Justice Kakaki, however, said he had not seen the application in the court file. He directed the prosecutor to check the registry to establish whether it had been properly filed and stood the case down.
When the case resumed, Omo-Osagie told 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.
Omo-Osagie told the court: “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 then presented another copy of the application to the court.
The prosecutor subsequently moved the motion on notice, dated September 18 and filed on September 21, 2026.
He said the application was supported by a 12-paragraph affidavit and a written address, which he adopted in urging the court to grant the reliefs sought and allow the nominal complainant to testify virtually because of his ill health.
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 said he had only received the second defendant’s response electronically on Monday.
Benson Nwosu, who appeared for the first defendant in place of Agboola, argued that the earlier application, which the court dismissed on June 23, 2026, sought permission for virtual testimony because the nominal complainant was outside Nigeria.
He said the prosecution could appeal the earlier decision rather than file another application seeking substantially the same relief.
Nwosu also argued that the prosecution should 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.
He urged the court to dismiss the application. Counsel for the second defendant adopted the first defendant’s arguments and urged the judge to reach the same conclusion.
After listening to the parties, Justice Kakaki adjourned the case until December 3, 2026, for a ruling on the application.
Background to the disputed property trial
At the previous proceedings on July 20, Ugbebor narrated how 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 told the court that he signed and returned the agreement by email before making payments in line with the contract.
According to the witness, the agreement was structured around performance milestones, with payments tied to the verifiable and satisfactory completion of work at different stages of the project.
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 about $400,000 at the prevailing exchange rates.
“I mentioned dollars because my income is in dollars. After the payment, the defendant started acting in a suspicious manner, basically taking my patience and simplicity for stupidity,” he told the court.
Ugbebor said the project was scheduled for delivery on February 28, 2019, but construction later stalled, prompting him to send a representative to inspect the site on October 11, 2022.
He said he subsequently petitioned the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 2 Command, Lagos, on December 10, 2023, after suspecting that Olusanya was not handling the transaction as planned.
