A Nigerian-American engineer, Anthony Ehiedu Ugbebor, has approached the Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos, to overturn a judgment of the High Court of Justice of the state, which declared that his property purchase agreement with developer, Mr Olukayode Olusanya and Oak Homes Multinational Services Limited had been extinguished by the doctrine of novation.
The court had ordered the refund of the N152 million he paid for two luxury apartments in Victoria Island, Lagos.
In a notice of appeal filed by his counsel, Barr. Nasir Salau of Nasir Salau & Co. he challenged the June 15, 2026, judgment delivered by Justice Akingbola George.
Ugbebor argued that the trial judge misapplied settled principles of contract law, ignored material evidence, wrongly dismissed his counterclaim, and erroneously refused his claim for specific performance of the property sale agreement.
The appeal arose from Suit No. LD/4471LM/2023, instituted by property developer Olukayode Olusanya and Oak Homes against Ugbebor and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over alleged trespass on two second-floor three-bedroom apartments located at 14A, Musa Yar’Adua Street, Victoria Island, Lagos.
Although the High Court dismissed most of the developer’s claims, it held that the parties’ conduct had effectively terminated their original agreement through novation.
The court also ordered Olukayode and Oak Homes to refund the N152 million previously paid by Ugbebor, while dismissing the engineer’s counterclaim seeking completion and delivery of the apartments or, alternatively, damages.
Dissatisfied with those findings, Ugbebor asked the Court of Appeal to overturn the judgment, restore the validity of the original contract and compel Oak Homes to honour its obligations under the agreement.
In his appeal, however, Ugbebor urged the appellate court to set aside the judgment in its entirety, arguing that the trial court’s findings were contrary to the evidence and established legal principles governing contracts.
He maintained that the original agreement remained valid and enforceable and asked the Court of Appeal to compel Oak Homes to honour its contractual obligations.
One of his principal complaints was that the trial judge wrongly placed the burden of proving payment on him rather than on the claimant.
According to the notice of appeal, the judge erred in holding that he failed to make payments within contractual timelines despite evidence that the payment structure under the agreement was tied to construction milestones rather than fixed dates.
