Justice Musa Kakaki of the Federal High Court in Lagos on Tuesday admitted a February 5, 2024 offer letter into evidence in the ongoing trial of property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his company, Oak Homes Ltd, over an alleged N152m property fraud.

The judge, however, rejected three other documents dated January 10, January 11 and December 15, 2024, holding that they were photocopies and had not been properly explained by the witness who sought to tender them.

Justice Kakaki also adjourned the case until December 3, 2026, for ruling on a prosecution application seeking virtual proceedings on health grounds.

The ruling on the documents followed objections raised during the previous proceedings on July 20, 2026, when the prosecution sought to tender them through the nominal complainant, Anthony Ugbebor.

In his ruling, Justice Kakaki said the witness had failed to explain the whereabouts of the original copies of the three rejected documents.

“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 judge said.

On the February 5, 2024 offer letter, the judge rejected the objection that Ugbebor was not the maker of the document.

“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 said.

Following the ruling, prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police Monday Omo-Osagie, informed the court that he had an interim application ready for hearing, adding that the defendants had been served and had filed responses.

However, counsel for the first defendant, Adeleke Agboola, SAN, questioned the prosecutor’s status, saying he had received information that Omo-Osagie had retired from the police.

Agboola said the prosecutor needed to clarify whether he was appearing under a fiat, adding that he was not served with the interim application in his office.

He also added that the prosecutor did not serve his office with the interim application.

Agboola said that when he informed the prosecutor this morning that he ought to have served his office, the prosecutor told him he was not obliged to do so, adding that he had served the first 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 said.

He argued that the application was not ripe for hearing; he added that it was an attempt to revisit an issue the court had already decided.

“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 noted.

Counsel for the second defendant, Jude Ehiedu, also asked the prosecutor to clarify whether he was appearing under a fiat.

Ehiedu confirmed receipt of the application but argued that it was 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 said the application was filed on September 21, 2026, and that the first defendant was served on September 30.

“I am a serving police officer until I am issued a certificate of discharge. I am still in service. I do not know where the SAN got his information from or whether he has my discharge certificate.

“I am aware that this is an interim application and that the substantive matter is still pending. It is even part of the grounds of our application that the nominal complainant is not here.

“The SAN confronted me this morning and asked why I didn’t serve his office and served the first defendant. I served the first defendant on September 30, 2026, and that is how I have been serving the defendant. If the defendant did not bring it to him on time, that is 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 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 and directed the prosecutor to check the registry to establish whether it had been properly filed.

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 a registrar in Kakaki’s court identified 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 said, before presenting 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.

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 first and second defendants’ responses electronically on Monday.

Counsel for the first defendant, Benson Nwosu, who stood in for Agboola, argued that the earlier application, which the court dismissed on June 23, 2026, sought 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, while 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 ruling on the application.

At the previous 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 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 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 N152m, representing 80 per cent of the N190m 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 suspiciously, 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 stated that he subsequently petitioned the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 2 Command, Lagos, on December 10, 2023, after concluding that Olusanya had fraudulently handled the transaction.