Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, Ikeja, will on Thursday decide whether or not to entertain an application challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the alleged theft and dishonest conversion charge filed against Chappal Energies’ Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Ufoma Immanuel.
Justice Oshodi fixed the ruling after counsel to the police, Mohammed Usman, and the defence lawyer, Tade Oshodi (SAN), disagreed on when the defendant’s jurisdiction challenge should be heard.
While Usman argued that the court could not consider the application until Immanuel entered his plea, Oshodi insisted that the court must resolve the jurisdictional issue before proceeding with the case.
The defence lawyer submitted that whenever a court’s competence to hear a matter is challenged, the issue must be determined at the threshold before the court takes further steps in the proceedings.
Justice Oshodi consequently fixed Thursday to resolve the issue.
The Police Special Fraud Unit (SFU) filed the charge, marked 28400C/26, against Immanuel, accusing him of conspiring with unnamed persons to steal a Lexus Jeep LA 600F belonging to Chappal Energies Offshore Ltd.
The police said the vehicle is worth about N600 million.
The defendant has denied the allegations.
In the 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. He alleged that hostile interests within Chappal Energies initiated it 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, the defendant urged the court to dismiss the charge, arguing that the allegations did not disclose sufficient facts capable of constituting the offences of conspiracy or stealing.
Alternatively, he asked the court to adjourn his arraignment pending the determination of a related suit before the National Industrial Court, marked NICN/LA/107/2026, Ufoma Joseph Immanuel v. Chappal Energies Mauritius Limited.
The defendant’s case, set out in a 56-paragraph affidavit and written address filed in support of the application, is that the criminal proceedings arose from a broader commercial dispute involving the ownership, management and control of Chappal Energies Mauritius Limited and its assets.
The defendant claimed that neither the petition lodged by the nominal complainant nor the proof of evidence disclosed facts establishing conspiracy or stealing against him.
His lawyers also argued that the conspiracy charge was particularly defective because it neither identified the persons with whom he allegedly conspired nor disclosed any alleged agreement, meeting of minds or concerted arrangement.
They further submitted that the petition which allegedly triggered the police investigation did not accuse Immanuel of stealing, arguing that the subsequent charge therefore lacked a proper factual foundation.
The defence described the criminal proceedings as an attempt to use the criminal justice system to pressure Immanuel in the ongoing 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,” the lawyers stated in their written address.
They urged the court to apply the principles established by the Supreme Court on abuse of court process and dismiss the charge.
