The Federal High Court in Lagos has approved the service of a contempt notice on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) following allegations of its non-compliance with existing court orders linked to the ownership conflict involving Chappal Energies.
In an order issued on November 6, 2026, Justice D.I. Dipeolu permitted the Founder and Managing Director of Chappal Energies, Mr. Ufoma Joseph Immanuel, to serve the EFCC with a Form 48 notice. This document, titled Notice of Consequences of Disobedience to Order of Court, is a precursor to potential contempt proceedings against parties accused of ignoring court mandates.
Represented by his lawyer, C.U. Wogu from Tunji Braithwaite Law Partners, Immanuel had submitted an ex parte motion on September 16, 2026, requesting permission to deliver the notice to the legal department of the EFCC at its headquarters in Abuja, or alternatively, to post it at the commission’s main entrance. The court granted the initial request but declined to pre-determine the adequacy of the service method.
Justice Dipeolu indicated that the application held merit, particularly in light of supporting affidavits. The court has scheduled the next hearing for December 1, 2026, to assess the notice’s service.
This legal confrontation stems from an ongoing dispute between Immanuel and his business partner, Adebisi Adebutu of R28 Limited. The parties have engaged in numerous legal battles, both domestically and internationally, involving shareholder rights and a $100 million financial issue.
Additionally, Immanuel has raised concerns about the EFCC’s actions, which include a publication from November 19, 2025, that labeled him wanted over allegations of forgery and fraud. These announcements reportedly conflict with a prior court order from September 11, 2025, that barred the EFCC from arresting or prosecuting him based on issues related to their business arrangement.
In a ruling on February 10, 2026, Justice Dipeolu concluded that the EFCC’s publication of Immanuel being wanted represented a violation of his constitutional rights and mandated the commission retract such statements. He also awarded damages for this infringement. However, claims from Immanuel’s legal team assert ongoing non-compliance by the EFCC with this ruling.
The EFCC has continued to pursue criminal charges against Immanuel, which his lawyers argue are rooted in the same civil disputes previously established by the court. A further injunction was issued in October 2026, reaffirming restrictions against EFCC actions in connection with the case.
This controversy has raised significant questions regarding the adherence to judicial decisions by the EFCC and the implications of ongoing legal battles over business disputes.
