Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, Ikeja, will today rule on whether to hear, before arraignment, an application challenging the court’s jurisdiction over the alleged theft and dishonest conversion charge against Chappal Energies’ Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Ufoma Immanuel.
The judge fixed the ruling after counsel to the police, Mohammed Usman, and the defence lawyer, Tade Oshodi (SAN), disagreed on when the challenge should be heard.
Usman argued that the court could not consider the application until Immanuel had taken his plea. Oshodi countered that whenever a court’s competence is challenged, the issue must be resolved at the threshold, before any further step in the proceedings.
The Police Special Fraud Unit (PSFU) filed the charge, marked 28400C/26, accusing Immanuel of conspiring with unnamed persons to steal a Lexus Jeep LA 600F belonging to Chappal Energies Offshore Ltd.
The police put the value of the vehicle at about N600 million. The defendant has denied the allegations.
In an application filed on September 22, 2026, Immanuel, through his lawyers led by Oluseun Awonuga (SAN), described the charge as an abuse of the criminal justice process.
Other News
He alleged that it was initiated by hostile interests within Chappal Energies to gain an advantage in an ongoing dispute over the control and management of the company and its assets.
In a notice of preliminary objection, he urged the court to dismiss the charge, arguing that the allegations did not disclose sufficient facts to constitute the offences of conspiracy or stealing. Alternatively, he asked the court to adjourn his arraignment pending the determination of a related suit at the National Industrial Court, Ufoma Joseph Immanuel v. Chappal Energies Mauritius Limited (NICN/LA/107/2026).
According to a 56-paragraph affidavit and a written address filed in support, the criminal proceedings arose from a wider commercial dispute over the ownership, management and control of Chappal Energies Mauritius Limited and its assets. Immanuel said neither the petition by the nominal complainant nor the proof of evidence disclosed facts establishing conspiracy or stealing against him.
His lawyers argued that the conspiracy charge was particularly defective because it neither named the persons with whom he allegedly conspired nor disclosed any agreement, meeting of minds or concerted arrangement. They added that the petition that triggered the police investigation did not accuse him of stealing, leaving the charge without a proper factual foundation.
They described the prosecution as an attempt to use the criminal justice system to pressure Immanuel in the corporate dispute. “The applicant’s submissions as to the abusive nature of the instant Information are fundamentally predicated upon the fact that the Information was procured by hostile elements within the nominal complainant,” they said in the address.
They urged the court to apply the Supreme Court’s principles on abuse of court process and dismiss the charge.
