Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
A Nigerian-American engineer, Anthony Ehiedu Ugbebor, has taken his decade-long property battle to the Court of Appeal in Lagos, asking the appellate court to overturn a High Court judgment that ordered the developer to refund N152 million instead of compelling the handover of two luxury apartments in Victoria Island. In a Notice of Appeal filed on Monday, 6 July 2026, Ugbebor challenged the June 15, 2026 judgment delivered by Justice Akingbola George of the Lagos State High Court sitting at Osborne, Ikoyi. The lower court had declared that his property purchase agreement with developer Olukayode Olusanya and Oak Homes Multinational Services Limited had been extinguished by the doctrine of novation, thereby limiting his remedy to a refund of the purchase price.
The dispute originated from a suit filed by 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 ruled that the conduct of both parties had effectively terminated their original agreement through novation. Justice George consequently ordered Oak Homes and Olusanya to refund the N152 million already paid by Ugbebor for the apartments nearly ten years ago, without interest, while dismissing the engineer's counterclaim seeking either completion and delivery of the properties or damages for breach of contract.
Dissatisfied with those findings, Ugbebor has asked the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment in its entirety, restore the validity of the original contract and compel Oak Homes to honour its obligations under the agreement. In a nine-ground Notice of Appeal filed before the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal, he contends 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.
One of his principal complaints is that the trial judge wrongly placed the burden of proving payment on him instead of 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. The appellant argued that under the payment schedule contained in Exhibit CW1, 35 percent of the purchase price became payable upon completion of the roofing stage, while the final 20 percent became payable only upon completion of the apartments. He maintained that the agreement never required payment on fixed calendar dates and that he had already paid about 80 percent of the agreed purchase price even though the developer allegedly failed to attain the contractual milestones.
According to him, the trial judge misconstrued the payment clauses and ignored the unchallenged testimony of the defence witness that substantial payments had been made despite the developer's inability to complete the project as agreed. He further argued that under the Evidence Act, the burden of proving non-payment rested on Oak Homes, which alleged breach of contract, and not on him. A major plank of the appeal is the trial court's reliance on the doctrine of novation. Justice George had held that the conduct of both parties created a new contractual relationship which effectively extinguished the original agreement. However, Ugbebor argued that the finding was contrary to established principles of Nigerian contract law. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Heritage Bank Ltd v. Ajugwo, he contended that novation cannot be presumed merely from the conduct of parties.
According to him, for novation to arise, there must be a clear agreement by all parties to replace the original contract, which was absent in this case. He further faulted the dismissal of his counterclaim, insisting that contracts relating to land ordinarily attract the equitable remedy of specific performance and that the trial court failed to determine the issue of frustration of contract despite evidence and submissions by both parties. Ugbebor also argued that the judgment failed to properly evaluate his claims for general damages, special damages and specific performance, while contradicting itself by acknowledging breaches allegedly committed by Oak Homes but refusing all the reliefs sought in his counterclaim. He is urging the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment in its entirety, restore the validity of the original property sale agreement and compel Oak Homes Multinational Services Limited to honour its contractual obligations.
The case has drawn attention to the recurring challenges faced by property buyers in Nigeria's real estate sector, where developers often fail to complete projects despite receiving substantial payments. Ugbebor had previously told a Lagos court that he paid N152 million for the two luxury flats with his "life savings" only for the developer to later deny having records of the transaction. The appeal is now pending before the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal, and the outcome could have significant implications for property law in Nigeria, particularly regarding the application of the doctrine of novation and the remedy of specific performance in real estate transactions. As the legal battle enters its next phase, all eyes are on the appellate court to determine whether the engineer will finally secure the apartments he paid for nearly a decade ago or whether the refund order will stand.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments