Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court, Ikeja, will today (Thursday) rule on whether the court can hear a jurisdictional challenge to the theft and dishonest conversion charge filed against the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Chappal Energies, Mr. Ufoma Joseph Immanuel.
Justice Oshodi fixed the date after counsel for the police, Mohammed Usman, and defence counsel, Tade Oshodi (SAN), disagreed over when Immanuel’s challenge to the court’s jurisdiction should be considered.
While Usman argued that the court could not entertain the application until Immanuel had been arraigned and entered his plea, the defence maintained that the court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the charge, arguing that jurisdiction is a threshold issue that should be resolved before any further proceedings.
The Police Special Fraud Unit (SFU) filed charge number 28400C/26, accusing Immanuel of conspiring with unnamed persons to steal a Lexus Jeep LA 600F belonging to Chappal Energies Offshore Ltd. The police valued the vehicle at about N600 million.
In an application filed on September 22, 2026, Immanuel, through his lead counsel, Oluseun Awonuga (SAN), described the prosecution as an abuse of the criminal process.
He alleged that hostile interests within Chappal Energies had instigated the criminal charge as part of efforts 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, Immanuel urged the court to dismiss the charge on the ground that it failed to disclose facts capable of constituting the offences of conspiracy or stealing.
Alternatively, he sought an adjournment of 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 defence filed a 56-paragraph affidavit and written address, arguing that the criminal proceedings arose from a wider commercial dispute concerning the ownership, management and control of Chappal Energies Mauritius Limited.
According to the defence, neither the initial petition nor the police’s proof of evidence disclosed facts sufficient to establish the alleged offences of conspiracy or theft.
The defence further argued that the conspiracy count was defective because it failed to identify the alleged co-conspirators or disclose any agreement or meeting of minds between them.
It also pointed out that the original petition did not accuse Immanuel of stealing the vehicle, contending that this further undermined the factual basis of the charge.
The defence characterised the prosecution as an attempt to deploy the criminal justice system to exert pressure on Immanuel in the ongoing corporate dispute.
It urged the court to apply established Supreme Court principles on abuse of process and dismiss the charge.
