ABUJA/Nigeria: An Abuja High Court has nullified criminal proceedings instituted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Chappal Energies founder, Ufoma Joseph Immanuel, and Intermediate Investment Holdings Limited (IIHL), ruling that an earlier court order restricting the prosecution remained binding.
Justice Josephine Obanor of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, held that the commission could not disregard the subsisting order of September 11, 2025, and proceed with criminal proceedings against the applicants without first challenging the decision through the appropriate legal process.
The ruling, contained in a certified true copy of the court’s order made available to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), followed an application by Immanuel, IIHL and Chappal Energies Mauritius Limited for judicial intervention over the prosecution in Lagos.
Justice Obanor observed that the earlier order had neither been set aside nor lawfully discharged, making it binding on the parties affected by it.
She faulted the EFCC for failing to appeal the order before proceeding with the criminal case at the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja Division.
According to the judge, a party dissatisfied with a judicial decision must seek redress through the established legal process rather than act as though the decision does not exist.
The court maintained that allowing parties to disregard subsisting judicial orders would undermine the authority of the judiciary and weaken the administration of justice.
The September 11, 2025, order had restrained the EFCC and the Nigeria Police Force, including their agents and privies, from arresting, detaining or prosecuting Immanuel and IIHL over issues connected with disputed shareholding arrangements and contractual obligations involving the applicants, businessman Adebisi Adebutu, Biswal Limited and R28 Limited.
The restrictions covered disputes relating to cross-shareholding agreements, subscription rights and the performance of contractual obligations between the parties.
In the earlier proceedings, the court considered the dispute to be civil in nature and restrained the relevant law enforcement agencies from taking the specified enforcement actions against the applicants.
Despite the order, the EFCC filed a criminal charge against Immanuel and IIHL before the Lagos State High Court on October 7, 2025.
The commission alleged that Immanuel induced Adebutu to invest $1.5 million under the guise of financing projects associated with Chappal Petroleum Development Company Limited, IIHL and Chappal Energies Mauritius Limited.
Immanuel and IIHL were subsequently arraigned on March 11, 2026, before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja Division, on a two-count charge bordering on forgery and obtaining money by false pretence.
The allegations formed part of a wider dispute involving investments, contractual commitments and shareholding interests in businesses associated with the parties.
On July 1, 2026, Immanuel, through his lawyers, Oluseun Awonuga, SAN, and E. B. Aigbe, returned to the FCT High Court seeking an anti-suit injunction to prevent the EFCC from taking further steps in the Lagos prosecution.
The applicants argued that continuing the criminal proceedings would conflict with the existing order of September 11, 2025.
They also sought an order restraining the commission from relying on or tendering documents already placed before the FCT High Court in connection with the disputed proceedings.
The suit listed the Attorney-General of the Federation, the EFCC, the Nigeria Police Force, R28 Limited, Biswal Limited and Adebutu as respondents.
In considering the application, Justice Obanor upheld the applicants’ argument that the commission should have challenged the earlier ruling through an appeal rather than proceed with the prosecution while the order remained in force.
The decision underscores the obligation of parties, including law enforcement agencies, to comply with subsisting court orders unless they are lawfully set aside or discharged.
However, the ruling concerns the legal effect of the earlier order and the continuation of the specified criminal proceedings. The allegations relating to the disputed $1.5 million investment should not be treated as established facts merely because charges were filed.
