The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, has restrained the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from taking further steps in a criminal case against the founder of Chappal Energies Limited, Ufoma Joseph Immanuel, and Intermediate Investments Limited, holding that the commission should have challenged a subsisting court order through an appeal rather than proceed with the prosecution.
Justice Josephine Obanor, in a ruling delivered on October 16, 2026, held that the EFCC could not lawfully disregard an existing order of court and proceed with criminal charges against the applicants as though the order did not exist.
The ruling arose from a suit instituted by Chappal Energies Mauritius Limited, Intermediate Investments Limited and Immanuel against the Attorney-General of the Federation, the EFCC, the Nigeria Police Force, R28 Limited, Biswal Limited and Adebisi Adebutu.
The applicants were represented by Oluseun Awonuga, SAN, and E. B. Aigbe. Richard E. Dauda appeared for the EFCC, while Muhammad Saidu Lawal represented the fourth to sixth defendants.
In granting the applicants’ reliefs, the judge restrained the EFCC from taking further steps in, continuing with or prosecuting Charge No. ID/27000C/2025, Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Ufoma Joseph Immanuel and Intermediate Investments Limited, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
The court also restrained the commission from relying on specified documents already tendered in the criminal proceedings.
Justice Obanor stressed that the EFCC’s proper course, if dissatisfied with the earlier order, was to challenge it through the appellate process.
“The 2nd Defendant, (the EFCC), if aggrieved by the decision of this Court, ought to have challenged it through the lawful process of appeal to the Court of Appeal. No such appeal was filed,” the judge held.
She added: “It was not open to the 2nd Defendant to disregard the order and proceed to charge the 2nd and 3rd Claimants to court as though the order did not exist.”
Emphasising the binding nature of judicial orders, the court stated: “A subsisting order of court remains binding until it is set aside or otherwise lawfully discharged.”
The judge further declared: “No party is entitled to determine unilaterally that an order of court should not be obeyed.”
According to the court, allowing parties to disregard subsisting orders would undermine judicial authority and weaken the administration of justice.
“This Court has a solemn duty to preserve its sanctity, protect the authority of its orders and ensure that its judicial processes are not rendered ineffective,” Justice Obanor said.
The court’s decision followed an application by the applicants challenging the EFCC’s decision to proceed with the criminal case despite the earlier order made on September 11, 2025.
The criminal charge, filed before the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja Division, on October 7, 2025, accused Immanuel and Intermediate Investments Limited of offences including obtaining property by false pretence and forgery.
The EFCC opposed the application, relying on its statutory powers to investigate and prosecute alleged financial crimes.
It maintained that the criminal proceedings concerned allegations that warranted prosecution.
However, the applicants contended that the commission’s actions were inconsistent with the subsisting court order and sought judicial intervention to prevent further steps in the criminal case.
The ruling also addressed a preliminary objection by R28 Limited, Biswal Limited and Adebutu, who challenged the FCT High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Justice Obanor dismissed the objection, declining to hold that the dispute fell outside the court’s jurisdiction merely because it arose from a transaction involving shares.
“The fact that the transaction involves shares does not automatically mean that every dispute arising from it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, irrespective of the reliefs sought,” the judge held.
The court considered the nature of the claims and reliefs sought before it, noting that the applicants’ case raised issues concerning the alleged criminalisation of a civil contractual dispute and the effect of the earlier court order.
It nevertheless declined to make a conclusive determination at the interlocutory stage on the effect of the contractual provision specifying English law or jurisdiction, leaving the substantive issues for determination in the main suit.
