Court adjourns Oak Homes N152m fraud case to July 8

An Assistant Superintendent of Police, Egho Amiebelomo, on Tuesday, explained to a Federal High Court in Lagos that the ongoing N152m fraud case against the Chief Executive Officer of Oak Homes Limited, Olukayode Olusanya, and his company, bordered on fraud, obtaining under false pretence, and stealing.

Olusanya and his company are facing four counts: conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretence, fraud, and stealing, brought against them by the police.

He was arraigned on November 26, 2024, but pleaded not guilty.

According to the police, Olusanya conspired with Lynda Umeh, the company’s Head of Sales and Marketing, who is currently at large, to defraud a Nigerian-American engineer, Anthony Ugbebor.

The police alleged that between November 8, 2017, and August 4, 2020, the two deceived Ugbebor into paying N152m for two three-bedroom apartments at Oak Residence, Victoria Island, promising to deliver the property by February 28, 2019.

However, they failed to deliver the property.

On February 10, 2025, the prosecution attempted to tender the complainant’s petition and the defendant’s statement in evidence, but the defence objected to the admissibility of the documents.

Consequently, Justice Musa Kakaki adjourned ruling on the issue to Tuesday.

At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, the judge delivered his ruling on the admissibility of the two documents.

Amiebelomo, who is the first prosecution witness, told Justice Kakaki that during his investigation, he invited three other witnesses and recorded their statements.

He testified that the three people he invited were Mrs Kofo Coker, Mr Seye, and Mr Shuiabu.

When the prosecutor, Supol M. A. Omo-Osagie, asked whether any of the three witnesses submitted documents to him, he replied in the affirmative.

“Yes, they tendered the payment receipt and offer letter from the defendant, issued in 2017, which the complainant, Anthony Ugbebor, accepted,” Amiebelomo said.

The presiding judge adjourned the case till July 8, 2025, for continuation of trial.

Earlier, during cross-examination, the first defendant’s counsel, Adeleke Agboola (SAN), asked the witness for the date on the petition, and he responded that it was dated December 27, 2023.

When asked when the petition was submitted to the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Zone 2, he said, “It was submitted on the same day and referred to me for investigation that same day.”

Amiebelomo also told the court that he met the petitioner in person for the first time when the AIG transferred the petition to his department and that Ugbebor made a statement and signed it in his presence.

Asked to confirm the signature on the petition, the witness said, “I’m not a signature expert.”

He confirmed that he discovered, during his investigation, that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had previously handled the matter.

Amiebelomo stated that he was not aware that Olukayode Olusanya had refunded N110m via bank draft to the EFCC.

He further told the court that, during his investigation, the defendant, Olusanya, never informed him that he had made any partial payment to the EFCC.

When asked whether he was aware of a civil suit No. LD447LMW/2023 before the Lagos State High Court, in which a pre-emptive order of injunction was granted against the complainant and the EFCC, he responded, “They were not served.”

Agboola then asked the witness whether he was aware of several court decisions barring the police from interfering in civil matters, arguing that the case was purely civil.

However, prosecution counsel, Omo-Osagie objected to the line of questioning.

He cited authorities and argued that a civil transaction could also become a criminal matter.

He referenced Section 135 of the Evidence Act to support his argument and urged the court to disregard the question.

Counsel for Oak Homes, Mr E. Jude, suggested to the witness that his investigation was inconclusive. But Amiebelomo insisted, “My investigation was conclusive. When I visited the location, the building was not complete.”

When asked if the defendant gave any reason during the investigation for failing to hand over the property to the complainant, he replied, “Yes.”

The witness explained, “The defendant said the price he agreed with Ugbebor was no longer workable for him, as costs had increased, and that he would not go ahead with the initial terms. That was what he told me.”

When asked whether Olusanya cited COVID-19 or the sealing of the property by the Lagos State Government as reasons for non-delivery, he said, “No, he didn’t mention COVID or the sealing of the building by the Lagos State Government.”

Earlier, Justice Kakaki ruled on the admissibility of the complainant’s petition, stating, “The petition sought to be tendered is signed. I admit the same in evidence and mark it as Exhibit A.”

However, the judge refused to admit the defendant’s confessional statement in evidence.

He held that the prosecution did not comply with Section 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.

“The statement is hereby marked as rejected,” he ruled.