The controversy surrounding the prizes awarded to the winner of House of Stars Season Two has deepened, following the public release of documents by Lolo Simeon, the show’s winner. In a detailed Facebook post accompanied by copies of an agreement, Lolo alleged that the house she won as part of her prize was tied to conditions that effectively deny her true ownership, despite months of assurances.
This latest development comes after Lolo previously spoke out about delays, unanswered requests, and what she described as deception over both the house and the vehicle presented to her after the reality show ended in February two thousand and twenty five.
According to Lolo, after repeatedly asking for ownership documents for the house she won, she was presented with a “Guarantee and Future Transfer Agreement” by representatives linked to King’s Empire, the entity behind House of Stars. The document, dated the seventh day of June two thousand and twenty five, was described by her as backdated and exploitative.
After consulting her lawyer, Lolo said she was firmly advised not to sign the agreement. Even without legal advice, she maintained that she would never have accepted its terms.
“I am not half baked,” she wrote, insisting that the agreement raised serious legal and ethical concerns.
A closer look at the document supports her claims. In fact, although it was mentioned that the house was awarded as a prize, there is a condition for the “conditional transfer of title” that takes full ownership after ten years, during which there are conditions that must be fulfilled. Among these conditions are those that relate to the House of Stars brand or activities.
For many observers, this clause directly contradicts the public impression created during the show that the winner would receive a fully owned house.
Even as this deal supposedly promises “a guarantee of ownership,” it plainly states that this transfer would not actually happen until the end of the decade, and this would be contingent upon the terms determined by the guarantor. Indeed, this means that the lucky individual gets to enjoy the home and own it in name, but not really.
The formularized contract also imposes the responsibility for taxes, maintenance, among other obligations on the beneficiary before the ownership can change hands. Lawyers feel that the process has a discrepancy since the person who wins the property takes all the risks but has no rights.
Another problematic area of the contract provided by the parties for verification by the mother-in-law, or _Lolo_, is the absence of the signed beneficiary portion of the document provided by the parties’ messenger. The guarantor’s signatures are present, but the signatures for the beneficiary are blank, consistent with the mother-in-law’s defense that the petitioner rejected the contract
This fact is consistent with the previous worries expressed by Lolo about the state of the house. As she previously disclosed, the building was poorly constructed, structurally unsafe, and unfit for habitation. Independent assessments reportedly found water soaked ceilings, leaking walls, and serious construction faults traced back to the foundation.
She also revealed that her mother had to spend nearly two months in a hotel supervising urgent repairs that should never have been necessary. Even after spending significant personal funds, the house remains unsafe to live in.
Looking past her home, Lolo has also had experiences related to her car that she won, which she says she received in an unscrupulous manner when she was awarded an unregistered Nissan Rogue that often caused her some level of danger to her life.
In her most recent statement, Lolo raised the stakes when she called on the national institutions to intervene. She asked the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Country Planning, Anti-Corruption Commission, and all other relevant institutions to investigate the land on which House of Stars prize houses stand and their building and contractual procedures.
Read Also: House of Stars Winner Lolo Simeon Breaks Silence Over Unfulfilled Prizes, Alleges Deception and Unsafe Living Conditions
Her concerns extend beyond her personal situation. She questioned whether any winner of the show has ever been genuinely granted full ownership of a house, suggesting a pattern that could amount to systemic deception.
“At this point, it is clear there is no genuine intention to grant full ownership to winners,” she stated.
This saga has brought to the fore issues regarding accountability on reality television show platforms and the safety of participants who dedicate their time and good will to such shows. Thousands of loyal supporters, known as ‘Troopers,’ invested their money and goodwill towards winning the show for Lolo.
In those regards, the contest has transcended being a mere fight between a winner and a show organizer. It is also about consumer protection and fairness on entertainment platforms in Sierra Leone.
As Lolo Simeon continues to push for answers, her case is fast becoming a test of whether institutions will act to protect citizens from contracts that appear generous on stage but restrictive on paper. For now, the documents she has released tell a story that sharply contrasts with the celebrations that followed her victory.
