Lagos Court Sentences Couple Over ₦67.6m Estate Fraud, Orders Full Refund

A Lagos State Special Offences Court has convicted a couple over the fraudulent sale of a property belonging to beneficiaries of a deceased man's estate, sentencing them to prison terms and ordering the repayment of ₦67.66 million.

A Lagos State Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja has convicted Harry Uyanwanne and his wife, Oluwakemi Odia, also known as Kristein Uyanwanne, over a property fraud involving the estate of the late Dr. Moshood Babatunde Odemuyiwa, bringing a legal dispute dating back to an alleged unauthorized property transaction in 2010 to a significant judicial conclusion. Justice Mojisola Dada delivered the judgment on Monday, November 2, 2026, finding the defendants guilty of conspiracy, stealing and obtaining money by false pretence. The court also ordered both convicts to make full restitution of ₦67,659,592 to the petitioner, Olusola Odemuyiwa, who brought the matter concerning the disputed estate property before the authorities.

The prosecution was instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), through its Lagos Zonal Directorate 1, following allegations that the couple had unlawfully disposed of a property belonging to the rightful beneficiaries of the late Odemuyiwa's estate. At the center of the case was a building located at No. 19, Murtala Mohammed Way, Ebute Meta, Oyingbo, Lagos, which the prosecution alleged was sold in 2010 without the necessary authorization from the estate's legitimate beneficiaries. According to the charges, the defendants allegedly represented themselves as individuals with the authority to sell the property, despite knowing that they had not received the required consent from those legally entitled to administer or benefit from the estate.

The EFCC alleged that the property was sold to a buyer identified in the charge as Harry Dyawanne for ₦16 million. The prosecution maintained that the defendants falsely represented that they had been authorized by the bona fide beneficiaries of the late Dr. Moshood Babatunde Odemuyiwa's estate to complete the transaction. That alleged representation formed a central part of the case against the couple, with investigators arguing that the sale was carried out through deliberate misrepresentation intended to obtain money dishonestly. The prosecution further alleged that the defendants conspired to take possession of or dishonestly deal with property belonging to the estate, an offence covered under Section 285(1) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2011.

The charges raised questions about the authority under which the property was transferred and whether the individuals who purportedly facilitated the transaction had any legitimate right to dispose of the deceased man's assets. In property transactions involving deceased persons, ownership and the authority to sell are separate legal considerations from the possession of documents or the ability to negotiate a transaction. The administration of an estate ordinarily involves determining the persons legally entitled to inherit or administer the deceased's assets, as well as establishing who has the authority to enter into binding transactions involving those assets. In this case, the prosecution's position was that the defendants had no authorization from the legitimate beneficiaries to sell the Ebute Meta property, and that their alleged claim of authority was knowingly false.

Both defendants pleaded not guilty when they were arraigned, setting the stage for a trial in which the prosecution was required to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution counsel, Fadeke Giwa, called three witnesses and presented documentary exhibits in support of the EFCC's case. The defence, meanwhile, called one witness as part of its response to the allegations. The evidence presented during the proceedings was considered by Justice Dada before she delivered her decision, holding that the prosecution had established the defendants' guilt on the first three counts. The judgment therefore represented a conviction following a contested criminal trial rather than an administrative decision or an agreement between the parties.

The court sentenced the defendants to three years' imprisonment each for conspiracy, one year for stealing and 10 years for obtaining money by false pretence, with no option of a fine attached to the 10-year sentence. The terms amount to 14 years when added together, although an important qualification remains concerning how the individual sentences are to be served. Premium Times reported that the EFCC's statement did not specify whether the terms were ordered to run consecutively or concurrently, meaning the aggregate period of imprisonment should not automatically be interpreted as a confirmed consecutive sentence. The judgment also included a separate direction concerning the first defendant, Harry Uyanwanne, whose sentence was ordered to be suspended until he is apprehended. Consequently, although both defendants were convicted and sentenced, the immediate enforcement of Uyanwanne's prison term is subject to his apprehension.

The court's decision was not an outright conviction on all the allegations brought against the couple. They had faced four counts involving conspiracy, stealing, obtaining money by false pretence and forgery, but Justice Dada discharged both defendants on the fourth count relating to forgery. This distinction is significant because the court found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to establish the first three offences while not sustaining the separate forgery charge. The discharge on that count does not overturn the convictions on conspiracy, stealing and obtaining money by false pretence, but it does mean the defendants were not convicted of every offence included in the original charge.

Beyond the custodial sentences, the restitution order is a major component of the judgment. Justice Dada directed the couple to refund the full sum of ₦67,659,592 to Olusola Odemuyiwa, the petitioner in the case. The amount is substantially higher than the ₦16 million identified in the prosecution's account as the price paid in the 2010 property transaction. However, the available court reporting does not provide a detailed breakdown explaining how the restitution figure was calculated, including whether it incorporates additional financial losses, subsequent assessments or other amounts established during the proceedings. It would therefore be inappropriate to assume that the difference represents interest or an independently established increase in the property's market value.

The case also draws attention to an earlier property-fraud conviction involving the same couple, although the two matters concern separate transactions and different complainants. In December 2024, The Guardian reported that a Lagos court had convicted Harry Uyanwanne and his wife, identified in that report as Oluwakemi Odemuyiwa, also known as Kristein Uyanwanne, in a separate ₦52 million fraud case involving property in the Magodo Residential Scheme in Lagos. The earlier prosecution involved allegations that the couple dishonestly converted ₦10 million belonging to a deceased woman and fraudulently sold a separate property at Plot 32, Block 9, Magodo Residential Scheme 1, for ₦42 million without the property owner's authorization.

In that 2024 case, Justice Dada sentenced Uyanwanne to 10 years' imprisonment and his wife to six years, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently. The court also directed the deregistration and closure of Temple International Church, which was named as a co-defendant, and ordered the couple to pay ₦31 million in restitution to the complainant. The proceedings were prosecuted by the EFCC, which had arraigned the defendants in February 2020. Although the earlier conviction involved allegations concerning a different estate and a separate property transaction, the reported similarities make it an important part of the couple's judicial history. It should not, however, be confused with the new conviction concerning the late Dr. Moshood Babatunde Odemuyiwa's estate.

The November 2026 judgment reinforces the legal consequences of falsely claiming authority to dispose of another person's property, particularly where inheritance and estate administration are involved. For families dealing with deceased relatives' assets, the dispute highlights the importance of establishing the identity of legitimate beneficiaries and verifying the legal authority of anyone seeking to sell or transfer inherited property. Prospective buyers also face risks when they enter transactions without independently establishing the seller's ownership rights and authority to complete a sale. A transaction involving a property associated with a deceased person's estate can create competing claims, financial losses and lengthy legal proceedings if the necessary estate documentation and authorization are not properly established.

For the Odemuyiwa family, the court's restitution order provides a formal direction for the recovery of ₦67,659,592, although the practical recovery of the money remains a separate matter from the pronouncement of judgment. The available reports do not establish whether the full amount has already been recovered or whether any payment has been made following the ruling. Similarly, the suspension of Uyanwanne's sentence until his apprehension leaves an outstanding enforcement issue, while the position regarding the implementation of the restitution order will be important in determining whether the petitioner receives the financial relief directed by the court.

The case therefore ends with convictions on three criminal counts, a separate discharge on the forgery charge and a substantial restitution order, but questions remain over the execution of the sentences, the recovery of the money and the immediate enforcement of the judgment against the first defendant. The EFCC's prosecution has resulted in a judicial finding that the couple committed the offences established by the evidence presented at trial, while the court's orders now place responsibility on the relevant authorities and enforcement processes to give effect to the decision. Further developments concerning Uyanwanne's apprehension and the recovery of the ₦67.66 million will determine how effectively the judgment translates into punishment and financial restitution for the petitioner.