Court Drama: N152m Property Dispute Delayed by Process Delivery Issues
Failure to serve court documents has hindered proceedings in a N152 million property conflict involving two luxury flats in Victoria Island, between entrepreneur Olukayode Olusanya, and a Nigerian engineer based in the United States, Anthony Ugbebor.
The case could not advance before a Lagos High Court situated in Ikoyi on Tuesday after the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, did not serve its final written address to the parties as mandated by the court.
The hearing was postponed to April 22, 2026, for the continuation of proceedings.
The lawsuit, initiated by property developer Olukayode Olusanya and his company, Oak Homes Limited, against Ugbebor, revolves around alleged intrusion into two second-floor apartments located at No. 14A Musa Yar’Adua Street, Victoria Island.
During the resumed proceedings before Justice Akingbola George, the claimant’s counsel, Benson Nwosu, apprised the court that the matter was set for the adoption of final written addresses.
However, he remarked that while the claimant had received the documents from the first defendant and filed a response, the EFCC had not yet served its address to the parties.
Nwosu further informed the court that attempts to serve the EFCC at its office on Awolowo Road, Ikoyi, were futile as officials at the entrance purportedly refused to accept the documents.
In reply, EFCC counsel, E.S. Okongbu, acknowledged that the Commission submitted its final written address dated March 4, 2026, but expressed regret for failing to complete service as per the court’s instructions.
As a result, Justice George directed the EFCC to promptly serve its documents on all involved parties and postponed the matter to April 22, 2026, for the adoption of final written addresses.
It is worth noting that during a prior session, an EFCC witness, Emmanuel Adide, had informed the court that the Commission was never authorized by Ugbebor to retrieve funds from the claimant, emphasizing that the organization “is not a debt recovery agency.”
Adide clarified that the complaint presented to the EFCC involved allegations of criminal breach of trust and fraud, which led to an investigation.
However, he mentioned that the Commission later determined that the conflict was civil in nature and recommended that the claimant reclaim previously submitted bank drafts. He further testified that while discussions took place regarding a refund, no agreement was made to sell the contested apartments to facilitate reimbursement, asserting that enforcing such a sale would be inappropriate.
The witness also verified that Olusanya was initially apprehended when he visited the EFCC office in Abuja but was subsequently released on bail, adding that the refund arrangement was not established during his detention.
According to him, the claimant disbursed a total of N102 million in installments via bank drafts, although he could not recall the precise number of payments. Under cross-examination, Adide maintained that there were no written requests from Ugbebor asking the EFCC to recover the funds, reinforcing the Commission’s stance that its function was restricted to investigating fraud allegations.
