A property developer, Mr. OlukayodeOlusanya, and his company, Oak Homes Limited, on Friday admitted before the Lagos State High Court sitting at TafaBalewa Square, that they failed to deliver two apartment units to a client as agreed, in an ongoing N152 million property dispute.
The admission came during proceedings in Suit No: LD/4471LM/2023 filed by the claimants against Mr. Anthony Ugbebor and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), who are the first and second defendants respectively.
While being cross-examined by defence counsel, Mr. N. Salau, Olusanya told Justice Akingbola George that the company did not meet the agreed completion and handover date.
“The completion date we communicated was two and a half years – late 2019 thereabout. February 28, 2019, was the completion and handover date. Yes, we didn’t deliver to the first defendant,” Olusanya said.
When asked if he had the first defendant’s authorisation to sell the two three-bedroom apartment units at Oak Residence, Victoria Island, Olusanyaresponded “I got the authorisation to sell from the first defendant? No. But from the EFCC, yes.”
On whether the first defendant accepted the delay in delivery, the witness stated “Yes, he was contented with the delay. He was fully aware of the scenario.”
Olusanya confirmed their transaction was based on an offer letter dated November 6, 2017, and that the first defendant paid a total of N152 million to Oak Homes over three years, with the final payment made in late 2022.
When asked if he had documented the grounds for terminating the contract, he replied “I did not state the grounds for the liquidation of the contract. As stated in the contract, I made a refund based on the instructions of the second defendant (EFCC).”
Earlier, while being led in evidence by his counsel, Mr. AdelekeAgboola (SAN), the claimant identified two initial offer letters addressed to the first defendant, dated November 6 and November 7, 2017, respectively. A third offer letter was issued in 2022 to Kofo Coker & Co.
On the whereabouts of the original offer letters, Olusanya said: “They are with the first defendant.”
He added that communication between Oak Homes and the first defendant was primarily via email.
The witness also referred to a letter from the EFCC Cybercrime Department, dated April 27, 2023.
He stated that Oak Homes responded via letters dated June 8, 2023, and August 3, 2023, the latter titled “Notice to Seize to Trespass Property.”
“There were several bank drafts made to the defendant. Subsequent communications included an email from our counsel to the first defendant and the EFCC, and a letter titled ‘Notice of Trespass and Desist’ sent to both parties,” he stated.
The court admitted Olusanya’s statement of claim, sworn on May 8, 2024, and a further affidavit filed in June 2025. Nine supporting documents were also admitted as exhibits.
However, when Agboola sought to tender additional documents, including the property purchase agreement and documents from the Lagos State Government, defence counsel Salau objected to the admissibility of the agreement, arguing it was unsigned.
Citing the case of OzorKwenyu v. PDP (2018), Salau said: “An unsigned document is a worthless paper.”
In response, Agboola argued that lack of a signature did not preclude admissibility, relying on Aliu v. Nnamdi (2022): “My learned friend didn’t say the document wasn’t received, only that it wasn’t signed. That does not affect admissibility.”
In a bench ruling, Justice George held “The unsigned agreement between the claimant and the first defendant is hereby rejected.”
Meanwhile, EFCC counsel, Mr. M. A. Sheu, applied for an adjournment, explaining he had just resumed work after a period of illness and needed time to review the case file and prepare for cross-examination.
