By DELE ALABI, Lagos
The Federal High Court, sitting in Lagos has reserved ruling till October 27, on admissibility of documents sought to be tendered by the prosecution in the ongoing trial of property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his company, Oak Homes Ltd, over an alleged N152 million property dispute.
The trial Judge, Justice Musa Kakaki fixed the date after hearing submission of the prosecution and the defence counsels on whether four offer letters allegedly showing attempts to resell the disputed properties could be admitted in evidence or not.
During the proceedings, prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police, Monday Omo-Osagie, called his third witness for the continuation of trial.
The third prosecution witness who is the nominal complainant, Engineer Anthony Ugbebor, who purposefully came from United State of America to give evidence narrated how he became involved in the transaction.
Engineer Ugbebor told the court that he petitioned the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 2 Command, Lagos, on December 10, 2023, after concluding that Kayode Olusanya had fraudulently handled the property transaction.
He said he entered into an agreement with the defendant in November 2017 after receiving assurances that Oak Homes was a reputable developer capable of delivering a retirement home in Nigeria.
According to him, he accepted the offer by signing and returning the agreement via email before making payments in line with the contract.
Narrating further that the arrangement, Ugbebor told the court, "The contract was structured as a performance milestone contract. In other words, the contract was based on verifiable, satisfactory and completed work at various stages of the project from start to finish."
He told the court that he made four payments between November 2017 and December 2020 amounting to N152 million, representing 80 per cent of the N190 million purchase price for two flats on the second floor of the building.
The money he said represented his life savings, equivalent to about 400,000 US dollars 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.
According to him, the project was expected to be delivered on February 28, 2019, but after construction stalled, he sent a representative to inspect the site on October 11, 2022.
However based on conversations involving him and his representative,but the defence counsel Mr Adeleke Agboola SAN objected, arguing that the witness was giving hearsay evidence.
"He can only testify as to what he did, and not what someone else did," Mr.Adeleke Agboola SAN submitted.
Justice Kakaki observed that the testimony appeared to be hearsay.
However, Omo-Osagie responded that there are recognised exceptions under the Evidence Act where hearsay evidence is admissible, urging the court to allow the testimony.
Ugbebor further testified that repeated efforts to reach the defendant by telephone and email proved unsuccessful.
"It now occurred to me that it appears the defendant is embarking on fraudulent activities. It was based on this that I reported the matter to the police," he said.
He alleged that the defendant claimed to have sold the properties without his authorisation and later discovered several offer letters showing the same apartments being marketed to other buyers at much higher prices.
He also alleged that by December 15, 2024, the defendant attempted to sell the same units for N560 million each.
According to him, one offer letter dated January 10, 2024, offered the properties for a total of N1.23 billion, while another dated January 11, 2024, quoted N950 million. A third letter dated February 5, 2024, increased the prices further, with the second-floor flats listed at N360 million each.
Summarising his complaint, he told the court:
"The defendant is trying to forcefully expel me from my property, reclaim it, put it back in the market at a price determined by him, sell the properties and put the money in his pocket — all without my consent and authorisation."
He added: "I gave the developer my life savings after staying in America for over 38 years. I paid him N152 million, equivalent to about 400,000 dollars."
The witness identified his statement to the police, which was admitted without objection as Exhibit 3.
He also identified payment receipts issued by the defendants, which were admitted in evidence without objection.
However, when the prosecution sought to tender the four offer letters allegedly showing attempts to resell the properties, Mr.Agboola SAN objected.
He argued that the documents were inadmissible because they were neither authored by the witness nor addressed to him.
"None of these documents was authored by this witness and none of them was addressed to him," Agboola SAN submitted.
He further argued that at least three of the documents were photocopies and relied on Section 83(1)(b) of the Evidence Act, contending that the maker of the documents ought to be called as a witness.
Agboola also relied on Section 83 of the Evidence Act, arguing that documents made while judicial proceedings were pending are generally inadmissible.
"Section 83 of the Evidence Act prohibits the admissibility of any document made when proceedings are pending. These documents were all made in 2024 when both this criminal charge and the civil case were already pending. Even if the maker were present, the documents should not be admitted," he argued.
The counsel to the second defendants Mr.Jude Ehiedu aligned himself with the submissions of the first defendant's counsel.
Responding, Omo-Osagie urged the court to dismiss the objections.
He relied on Section 15 of the Evidence Act, arguing that the documents were directly relevant to the facts in issue.
"A cursory look at these documents will show that the offer letters were issued on the letterhead of Oak Homes and signed by the first defendant," the prosecutor submitted.
He also cited decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his argument and urged the court to admit the documents in evidence.
After listening to both sides, Justice Kakaki fixed ruling on the admissibility of the disputed offer letters till October 27th 2026, and for continuation of trial.
0 Comments