A former Vice-Chancellor of Elizade University, Ilara-Mokin, Ondo State, Professor Adekunle Oloyede, is dissatisfied with the judgement of an Ondo State Magistrate Court sitting in Akure, the state capital over an allegation of theft, which he is appealing.
Hence, he has approached the Ondo State High Court to set aside his the conviction.
He has brought an application before the court on the argument that he was wrongly adjudged guilty.
His ordeal began when Chief Magistrate Aderemi Adegoroye, delivered a judgement on 25th January 2023, convicted the Professor Oloyede guilty of a six-count charges of conspiracy to steal, obtain by false pretence, obtaining under false pretences of the sum of Seven Hundred and Twenty Dollars ($720,000.00) on 3rd March 2015 under the pretext of constructing 500-bed space hostel at Elizade University using panel building technology from Australia.
The Australia-based professor of Medical Engineering was also accused of obtaining another Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) on 28 April 2017 from Mike Ade Investment Limited for Duro Global Property Limited for the same purpose of constructing a 500-bed hostel.
Another accusation against him was that he obtained another One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) on 19 May 2015 from Omimeje Resources Limited for Duro Global Property Limited for the same purpose of constructing a 500-bed hostel.
He was also alledged of Six Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000.00) from Elizade Investment Limited for the same purpose, but has denied the allegations.
The Ondo State Director of Public Prosecution represented by Mr. O.E Akintan, says his offences was contrary to and punishable under Section 419 of the state Criminal Code.
During his trial, Prof. Oloyede insisted he did not connive with anyone but merely acted as an intermediary and introduced the two parties.
He claimed no knowledge of when Chief Ade Ojo, owner of Elizade University, paid $720,000.00 or $250, 00.00 or $150,000.00 to Duro Global Property Limited.
He told the court that it was after Adeojo had sent the money that he (Chief Michael Ade Ojo) informed him about it.
He also said he was not at the meeting where the parties agreed to the contract between them.
He explained the reason $650,000.00 was sent to him (which was the only money that passed through him) was because of his role under the Power of Attorney.
He also informed the court that Chief Ade Ojo paid $720,000.00, $250,00.00 or $150,000 to Duro Global Property Limited.
He said it was after Chief Ade Ojo had sent the money that he (Chief Michael Ade Ojo) informed him about it.
He also said he was not at the meeting where the parties agreed to the contract between them.
However, Mrs. Adegoroye was not convinced of the evidence-in-chief of the ex-VC, but found him guilty and sentenced him to a cumulative eight years in prison with an option of a fine of Six Hundred Thousand Naira (N600,000.00) only.
But the Professor Oloyede opted for the fine option, in lieu of incarceration.
All this explains why Professor Oloyede, through his counsel, Oke Olusola Esq., of Chief G. O. Ijalana Esq., and Olusola Oke & Co of Graceville Law House, filed seven grounds of appeal.
What is more, Professor Oloyede insists Mrs. Adegoroye erred in law when she assumed jurisdiction to try the case notwithstanding that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case; that she reached a perverse decision when she relied on Exhibit p.28 to convict him; and that she further erred when she relied on substantive charge in count 3, 4, 5 and 6 which are on obtaining money under pretence to convict and sentence him on count 1, even though he was not charged with the offence of stealing.
Other grounds of appeal cited by Professor Oloyede are miscarriage of justice occasioned by the finding of the court that the purpose of the money was for the payment of building materials which creates a big doubt in the case of the prosecution. Professor Oloyede, on a final note, insists that the entire decision of the magistrate court is unreasonable, unwarranted and can not be supported having regard to the weight of evidence.
Date has not been fixed for the hearing of the application.
