Federal High Court Lagos: Oak Homes N152m Trial Evidence Admissibility Ruling

• The Federal High Court in Lagos admitted a February 5, 2024, offer letter into evidence in the N152 million property fraud trial of Olukayode Olusanya and Oak Homes Ltd.
• Justice Musa Kakaki rejected three other documents (dated January 10, January 11, and December 15, 2024) because they were photocopies and the witness failed to explain the absence of their originals.
• Defense counsel challenged the prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police Monday Omo-Osagie, questioning his status and demanding clarification on whether he was appearing under a fiat.
• The defense also complained about improper service of an interim application, arguing it was not ripe for hearing and constituted an abuse of court process.
• The case has been adjourned until December 3, 2026, for a ruling on a prosecution application for virtual proceedings due to health grounds.

This series of events in the Olukayode Olusanya fraud trial underscores the critical importance of meticulous procedural adherence in Nigerian legal proceedings.

In a significant development during the ongoing N152 million property fraud trial involving property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his company, Oak Homes Ltd., the Federal High Court in Lagos recently issued a ruling on the admissibility of key evidence. Justice Musa Kakaki, presiding over the case, admitted a crucial offer letter dated February 5, 2024, into the court records. This decision came after objections were raised regarding the document's provenance.

Conversely, the court rejected three other documents presented by the prosecution, specifically those dated January 10, January 11, and December 15, 2024. The judge's rationale for excluding these documents centered on their nature as photocopies and the witness's failure to adequately explain the absence of their original counterparts. This ruling on evidence admissibility underscores the strict requirements for presenting documentary evidence in Nigerian courts. The proceedings were subsequently adjourned until December 3, 2026, to address a prosecution application for virtual proceedings, citing health considerations.

Justice Kakaki's determination on the evidence followed objections raised during earlier proceedings on July 20, 2026, when the prosecution attempted to tender the documents through the nominal complainant, Anthony Ugbebor. Regarding the three rejected documents, the court found that Ugbebor did not provide any explanation for the whereabouts of the original copies, a critical omission given their status as mere photocopies. The judge explicitly stated that the witness had not accounted for the original documents when seeking to tender the copies.

However, the objection concerning the February 5, 2024, offer letter, which argued that Ugbebor was not its originator, was dismissed by the court. Justice Kakaki clarified that there is no legal provision stipulating that only the maker of a document can tender it as evidence. This distinction highlights a nuanced aspect of Nigerian court document admissibility, where the authenticity of a document is paramount, but the identity of the tendering witness as the maker is not always a prerequisite for admission. The ruling on the Oak Homes N152m trial evidence admissibility thus provides important guidance on these procedural points.

Following the evidence ruling, a new procedural hurdle emerged as defense counsel challenged the authority of the prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police Monday Omo-Osagie. Adeleke Agboola, SAN, representing the first defendant, questioned Omo-Osagie's status, indicating he had received information suggesting the prosecutor had retired from the police force. Agboola demanded clarification on whether Omo-Osagie was appearing under a fiat, which would grant him specific authority to prosecute despite his alleged retirement.

Further complicating matters, Agboola also raised concerns about the service of an interim application, stating that his office had not received it, despite the prosecutor claiming to have served the first defendant. Agboola recounted that Omo-Osagie had informed him he was not obligated to serve the defense counsel's office. Jude Ehiedu, counsel for the second defendant, echoed the demand for Omo-Osagie to clarify his prosecutorial status and, while confirming receipt of the application, argued it constituted an abuse of court process, given a similar request had been previously rejected. This prosecutor status challenge Nigeria introduced a significant procedural debate.

In response to the challenges, Chief Superintendent Omo-Osagie asserted his continued employment as a police officer, stating he remains in service until officially issued a certificate of discharge. He also clarified that the interim application in question was filed on September 21, 2026, and the first defendant was served on September 30. Agboola, however, contended that the application was not ready for hearing, characterizing it as an attempt to re-litigate an issue already decided by the court. He urged the prosecutor to either present his witness or conclude his case, allowing the defense to commence theirs.

This series of events in the Olukayode Olusanya fraud trial underscores the critical importance of meticulous procedural adherence in Nigerian legal proceedings. The Justice Musa Kakaki evidence ruling on document admissibility serves as a reminder for legal practitioners to ensure the proper tendering of original documents or to provide compelling explanations for their absence. Furthermore, the challenge to the prosecutor's standing highlights the necessity of verifying the authority of opposing counsel, which can be a pivotal point in litigation strategy. The upcoming December 3, 2026, hearing is expected to address both the virtual proceedings application and potentially the prosecutor's status.

This ruling highlights the critical importance for legal practitioners in Nigeria to ensure proper tendering of original documents as evidence, or to provide a robust explanation for the absence of originals, to avoid rejection. Additionally, the challenge to the prosecutor's standing serves as a reminder to verify the authority of opposing counsel, which can be a significant procedural defense point.

Source: Original reporting via The PUNCH