By Akin Kuponiyi

The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has adjourned the trial of Lagos property developer, Olukayode Olusanya, and his company, Oak Homes Limited, over an alleged ₦152 million property fraud, to 9 February 2026.

Justice Musa Kakaki, the presiding judge, gave the ruling on Tuesday while granting an application by the police prosecution to regularise the filing of an additional witness statement in the ongoing trial.

The prosecuting counsel, Chief Superintendent of Police (CSP) Monday Omo-Osagie, had filed an application dated 23 October 2025, seeking the court’s leave to call another witness to strengthen the case against the defendants.

In his ruling, Justice Kakaki granted the application as prayed and directed the prosecution to serve the defence team with the amended application within 14 days.

The defence, he ruled, must file its response before the next adjourned date.

Olusanya, the Chief Executive Officer of Oak Homes Limited, is standing trial alongside his company on a four-count charge bordering on conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretence, fraud, and stealing, filed by the Nigeria Police Force.

The defendants were first arraigned on 26 November, 2024, and both pleaded not guilty to all charges.

According to the charge sheet, between 8 November 2017 and 4 August 2020, Olusanya and Ms. Lynda Umeh, Oak Homes’ former Head of Sales and Marketing (now at large), allegedly defrauded a United States-based Nigerian engineer, Mr. Anthony Ugbebor, of ₦152 million.

The duo reportedly collected the funds under the pretext of selling two three-bedroom apartments at Oak Residence, Victoria Island, Lagos, promising to deliver them by 28 February 2019, but allegedly failed to hand over the property.

At Tuesday’s proceedings, CSP Omo-Osagie informed the court that the matter had been fixed for continuation of trial via virtual hearing, as contained in an earlier application filed on 25 July 2025.

However, defence counsel, Chief Agboola Adeleke (SAN), objected to the arrangement, insisting that the prosecution had yet to properly serve the application for virtual hearing on the defence.

“I completely oppose the virtual trial,” Adeleke argued.

“This is a criminal case; the parties should be physically present in court. Besides, we have not been duly served. If the prosecution is not ready, they should close their case,” he added.

Responding, Omo-Osagie explained that the application was duly filed through the court registrar and that he was informed it had been lodged with the registry.

“I made inquiries from the registrar, which is why this virtual setup was arranged. However, since the court has said the filing was not properly processed, we are seeking time to regularise it,” he said.

Adeleke, however, maintained that from the proof of evidence, the prosecution had listed four witnesses, out of which witnesses three and four had already testified.

He questioned which of the remaining witnesses the prosecution intended to call virtually and urged the court to impose a 14-day limit to avoid unnecessary delays.

Counsel to the second defendant, Mr. Jude Ehiedu, aligned with Adeleke’s submissions, noting that although he had not been formally served, he had seen the application and had expected it to be heard during Tuesday’s sitting.

After listening to both sides, Justice Kakaki adjourned the matter to 9 February, 2026 for continuation of trial

Source; PM News