Police Witness Testifies Against Oak Homes CEO Olusanya In Court Over Alleged Fraud

Justice Musa Kakaki of a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has heard how a businessman and hosuing developer, Mr Olukayode Olusanya, collected money from a United States-based client, Engr. Anthony Ugbebor, for a property in Victoria Island, Lagos, which was never delivered.

In the police charge sheet before the court, Olusanya, who is the CEO, Oak Homes Limited, was said to have collected the money from Ugbebor to the tune of N152m.

His trial over an alleged N152 million fraud officially commenced in court with an Assistant Superintendent of Police, Egho Amiebelomo, telling the court that the ongoing N152 million fraud case against Olusanya, the founder of Oak Homes Limited, and the company itself, involved allegations of fraud, obtaining under false pretence, and stealing.

Olusanya and his company are facing a four-count charge brought by the police, which includes conspiracy, obtaining money under false pretence, fraud, and stealing.

They were arraigned on November 26, 2024, and pleaded not guilty.

According to the police in the charge, Olukayode Olusanya conspired with Lynda Umeh—Head of Sales and Marketing at Oak Homes, who is currently at large—to defraud the Nigerian-American Engineer.

The alleged fraud occurred between November 8, 2017, and August 4, 2020, when they reportedly convinced Ugbebor to pay N152million for two three-bedroom apartments at Oak Residence in Victoria Island, Lagos, with a promise to deliver the property by February 28, 2019.

However, the property was never handed over to the buyer (Ugbebor).

At a recent court hearing on February 10, 2025, the prosecution attempted to submit both the complainant’s petition and the defendant’s statement as evidence, but the defence counsel objected.

However, at the resumed session, Justice Kakaki ruled on the matter. While the complainant’s petition was admitted and marked as Exhibit ‘A’, the defendant’s statement was rejected.

The judge explained: “The petition sought to be tendered is signed. I admit the same in evidence and mark it as Exhibit A.”

Regarding the defendant’s statement, the judge ruled: “The statement is hereby marked as rejected.”

He stated that the Defence counsel had failed to comply with Section 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act.

Taking the stand as the first prosecution witness, Amiebelomo testified that he had invited three additional witnesses—Mrs. Kofo Coker, Mr. Seye, and Mr. Shuiabu—during his investigation.

When asked by Prosecuting Counsel, Supol M. A. Omo-Osagie, if any of them submitted documents, he replied: “Yes, they tendered the payment receipt and offer letter from the defendant, issued in 2017, which the complainant, Anthony Ugbebor, accepted.”

The judge then adjourned the trial to July 8, 2025, for continuation.

During cross-examination, Defence Counsel Adeleke Agboola (SAN) asked Amiebelomo when the petition was dated. He responded: “It was dated December 27, 2023.”

He added that the petition was submitted to the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Zone 2, Lagos, and was assigned to him for investigation on the same day.

Amiebelomo also confirmed that he met Ugbebor in person after the petition was transferred to his department, and that the complainant made and signed a statement in his presence.

When asked to verify the authenticity of the signature on the petition, the officer said: “I’m not a signature expert.”

He further disclosed that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had previously handled the case but said he was unaware that Olusanya had refunded N110million to the EFCC via a bank draft.

He also stated that Olukayode Olusanya did not inform him of any partial payment during the investigation.

Under questioning, Amiebelomo said he was unaware of a civil suit—No. LD447LMW/2023—pending before the Lagos State High Court, in which a pre-emptive injunction had reportedly been granted against both the complainant and the EFCC.

“They were not served,” he stated.

Agboola argued that the case was purely civil in nature and pointed to existing court decisions prohibiting police involvement in such matters.

However, the prosecution objected to this line of questioning.

Citing legal authorities, Omo-Osagie maintained that civil transactions could become criminal if fraud is involved. He invoked Section 135 of the Evidence Act and urged the court to disregard the defence’s argument.

Counsel for Oak Homes, Mr. E. Jude, later suggested that Amiebelomo’s investigation was inconclusive. The officer, however, replied: “My investigation was conclusive. When I visited the location, the building was not complete.”

When asked if the defendant offered any explanation during the investigation for failing to deliver the property, Amiebelomo replied: “Yes.”

He added: “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.”

Asked whether Olusanya mentioned COVID-19 or the sealing of the property by the Lagos State Government as reasons for the delay, Amiebelomo said:

“No, he didn’t mention COVID or the sealing of the building by the Lagos State Government.”