A Federal High Court, Lagos, sitting before Justice Musa Kakaki on Tuesday granted the prosecution’s request to regularize its application for an additional witness in the ongoing trial of property developer Olukayode Olusanya, who is facing allegations of N152m, property fraud.
Prosecution counsel CSP Monday Omo-Osagie had filed the application dated October 23, 2025, seeking to add another witness to strengthen his case.
In his ruling, Justice Kakaki granted the application as prayed and directed the prosecution to serve the defence with the amended application for a virtual hearing within 14 days, while the defence must respond before the next adjourned date.
“The application is granted as prayed. The prosecution is to serve the amended application to the defence within 14 days, and the defence to respond before the next adjourned date,” the judge ruled.
Olusanya, the Chief Executive Officer of Oak Homes Limited, is standing trial alongside his company on a four-count charge of conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretence, fraud, and stealing, brought by the Nigeria Police Force.
The defendants were arraigned on November 26, 2024, and they pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
According to the police, between November 8, 2017, and August 4, 2020, Olusanya and one Ms. Lynda Umeh, the company’s Head of Sales and Marketing (now at large), allegedly defrauded a Nigerian-American engineer, Mr. Anthony Ugbebor, of N152m.
The duo purportedly collected the funds under the pretext of selling two three-bedroom apartments at Oak Residence, Victoria Island, Lagos, promising delivery by February 28, 2019, but never handed over the property.
At Tuesday’s proceedings, Omo-Osagie told the court that the matter was for continuation of trial by virtual hearing, as earlier requested in an application filed on July 25, 2025.
However, defence counsel Agboola Adeleke (SAN) objected, arguing that the prosecution had not served the application for virtual hearing on the defence.
“I am completely opposed to the virtual trial.
This is a criminal trial the parties should be present physically. In any case, we have not been served,” Adeleke said. “If the prosecution is not ready, they should close their case.”
Responding, Omo-Osagie told the court that the application was duly filed through the court Registrar and that he was informed a copy had been lodged with the court’s Registry.
“I made inquiries from the Registrar and did the needful. That is why this virtual setup was arranged. However, since the court has said it was not properly processed, we are asking for time to regularise the application,” he said.
Adeleke countered that from the proof of evidence, the prosecution had listed four witnesses, three or four of which had already testified.
He noted that the prosecution had not clarified which of the remaining witnesses would testify virtually.
He added that the prosecution served its amended application only on the previous Friday, urging the court to impose a 14-day time limit to avoid unnecessary delays.
The second defendant’s counsel, Jude Ehiedu, aligned with Adeleke’s submission.
He said although he had not been formally served, he had seen the application and expected it to be heard at Tuesday’s sitting.
Justice Kakaki subsequently adjourned the matter to February 9, 2026, for continuation of trial.
At the last sitting, the court had stopped an unlisted prosecution witness from testifying after the defence objected, arguing that a witness not listed in the proof of evidence could not be called to testify.
Leave a Comment