The Federal High Court in Lagos has authorised the service of a contempt notice on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) at its Abuja headquarters over alleged disobedience of a subsisting court order in the protracted ownership dispute involving Chappal Energies.
Justice D.I. Dipeolu, in an order made on November 6, 2026, granted an application by the Founder and Managing Director of Chappal Energies, Mr. Ufoma Joseph Immanuel, seeking permission to serve the commission with a Form 48 notice through an officer in charge of its legal department at its headquarters in Jabi, Abuja.
The Form 48, titled Notice of Consequences of Disobedience to Order of Court, is a procedural step towards initiating contempt proceedings against a party alleged to have disobeyed a subsisting court order.
Immanuel, through his counsel, C.U. Wogu of Tunji Braithwaite Law Partners, had approached the court through an ex parte motion dated September 16, 2026, seeking leave to serve the notice on the EFCC through its legal department or by conspicuously pasting it at the main entrance of the commission’s headquarters.
He also sought an order deeming service through the approved mode as good and sufficient for the contemplated contempt proceedings.
However, Justice Dipeolu granted only the first prayer, directing that the notice be delivered to the officer in charge of the EFCC’s Legal Department at Plot 301/302, Institutions and Research Cadastral District, Jabi, Abuja.
The Judge declined the second prayer seeking an order deeming such service automatically good and sufficient for the contemplated contempt proceedings.
In granting the application, Justice Dipeolu held that he had considered the motion and found merit in it, particularly in view of paragraphs 7 to 14 of the supporting affidavit.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter until December 1, 2026, for a report of service.
The latest development is connected to the protracted dispute between Immanuel and his business partner, Adebisi Adebutu of R28 Limited, over the ownership and control of Chappal Energies.
The dispute, which has generated several legal proceedings in Nigeria and overseas, reportedly involves contested shareholder rights, a disputed $100 million rights issue, questions surrounding an alleged $15 million payment, and proceedings in Nigeria, Mauritius, and international arbitration.
At the centre of the latest legal confrontation is the EFCC’s November 19, 2025 publication declaring Immanuel wanted over allegations of obtaining money by false pretenses and forgery.
Immanuel has consistently maintained that the disagreement with Adebutu is fundamentally commercial and relates to the parties’ shareholding arrangements, contractual obligations, and control of Chappal Energies.
The EFCC’s publication came despite an earlier order made on September 11, 2025, by Justice Josephine Obanor of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, restraining the commission and other respondents from arresting, detaining or prosecuting Immanuel over issues arising from the parties’ shareholding arrangements, cross-shareholding agreements, subscription rights and contractual obligations.
The FCT High Court had, among other things, considered the dispute to be civil in nature.
Following the EFCC’s publication, Immanuel approached the Federal High Court in Lagos to challenge the commission’s action and seek the enforcement of his fundamental rights.
On February 10, 2026, Justice Dipeolu ruled that the EFCC’s publication declaring Immanuel wanted amounted to an infringement of his constitutional rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement.
The Judge also held that the commission lacked the statutory power to restrain the applicant’s fundamental rights through the publication of November 19, 2025, particularly in the face of a subsisting court order.
Consequently, the court directed the EFCC to retract and withdraw all publications declaring Immanuel wanted and replace them with a public notice retracting the declaration.
Justice Dipeolu further awarded N5 million in damages against the commission as compensation for the infringement of Immanuel’s rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement and dignity.
However, Immanuel’s lawyers maintain that the EFCC has failed to comply with the judgment and the earlier restraining order.
They also contend that the commission proceeded with criminal charges against their client despite the subsisting judicial directives.
On March 11, 2026, the EFCC arraigned Immanuel and his company, IIHL, before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja Division, on a two-count charge bordering on forgery and obtaining $1.5 million by false pretenses.
The applicant’s legal team maintains that the criminal proceedings arose from the same commercial disagreement that formed the subject of the earlier FCT High Court order.
In October 2026, Justice Obanor reportedly issued a further restrictive injunction reaffirming her earlier order and restraining the commission from continuing with the criminal proceedings at the Ikeja High Court.
According to Immanuel’s lawyers, the judge held that the September 11, 2025 order remained binding on the EFCC and other defendants, having neither been set aside nor lawfully discharged.
Addressing the Federal High Court on November 6, Wogu reportedly argued that the commission’s continued failure to comply with the subsisting judgment raised fundamental questions about respect for judicial authority and the rule of law.
The lawyer maintained that the EFCC’s conduct amounted to a continuing disregard for the authority of the courts, insisting that a law enforcement institution could not demand obedience to the law from citizens while treating adverse judicial decisions as optional.
The applicant’s legal team also raised concerns over a recorded conversation allegedly involving Adebutu, a media commentator, and a member of Immanuel’s family.
According to the lawyers, the recording contained statements suggesting that pressure from law enforcement proceedings could be reduced if Immanuel relinquished his position in Chappal Energies.
The lawyers disclosed that the recording had been tendered in the ongoing judicial proceedings. However, the allegations arising from it have not been independently established by a court.
They also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Ojukwu v. Military Governor of Lagos State, which established an important principle against executive disregard for the authority of the courts. The matter has been adjourned to December 1 for report of service.