The Federal High Court in Lagos has authorised the substituted service of a contempt-of-court notice on the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ola Olukoyede, over an alleged failure by the commission to comply with an existing judicial order involving Chappal Energies founder, Ufoma Immanuel.
Justice Dehinde Dipeolu granted the application permitting the service of Form 48, a formal notice warning a person of the consequences of disobeying a court order.
Under the directive, the notice may be delivered to Olukoyede through the EFCC’s Legal Department at its headquarters in Abuja.
The application was brought by Immanuel, the founder and managing director of Chappal Energies, after his lawyer, C.U. Wogu of Tunji Braithwaite Law Partners, told the court that attempts to serve the EFCC chairman personally had been unsuccessful.
The judge granted the request for substituted service but declined to automatically deem the notice as having been sufficiently served.
The development marks another stage in the protracted legal dispute involving Immanuel, his business interests, his business partner Adebisi Adebutu and the anti-graft agency.
The latest order does not amount to a finding that Olukoyede is guilty of contempt. Rather, it authorises an alternative method of delivering the formal notice, which is part of the process for addressing alleged disobedience of a court order.
How the dispute between Immanuel and EFCC began
The legal battle is rooted in a disagreement over shareholding arrangements, investment obligations and control of business interests involving Immanuel, Adebutu and their associated companies.
The dispute attracted EFCC attention after Adebutu, Immanuel’s business partner and an associate of R28 Limited, reportedly petitioned the commission over the transactions.
On November 19, 2025, the EFCC published a notice declaring Immanuel wanted over allegations of obtaining money under false pretences and forgery.
However, the publication came after Justice Josephine Obanor of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, had issued an order on September 11, 2025, restraining the EFCC and other respondents from taking specified enforcement actions against Immanuel in connection with the disputed commercial arrangements.
The order covered issues relating to shareholding agreements, cross-shareholding arrangements, subscription rights and contractual obligations involving Immanuel and Adebutu.
Chappal Energies subsequently challenged the EFCC’s wanted-person publication, arguing that the commission had acted contrary to the existing court order.
Court awarded Immanuel N5m over EFCC wanted notice
The dispute took another turn on February 10, 2026, when Justice Dipeolu of the Federal High Court in Lagos ruled on Immanuel’s challenge to the EFCC’s public declaration.
The court held that the publication declaring him wanted violated his fundamental rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement.
It consequently directed the commission to withdraw the publications declaring Immanuel wanted and replace them with a public notice retracting the declaration.
The judge also ordered the EFCC to pay N5 million in compensation for the infringement of his rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement and dignity.
The ruling addressed the legality of the wanted-person publication; it did not, by itself, determine every issue arising from the underlying commercial dispute or establish the innocence or guilt of any party in relation to the separate allegations.
Abuja court voids EFCC criminal proceedings
Despite the earlier injunction, the EFCC proceeded with criminal proceedings against Immanuel and Intermediate Investment Holdings Limited (IIHL).
On March 11, 2026, the commission arraigned the businessman and his company before Justice Mojisola Dada of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja Division, on allegations involving forgery and obtaining $1.5 million by false pretences.
Immanuel and his company challenged the proceedings, relying on the earlier Abuja court order.
In a ruling delivered on October 16, 2026, Justice Obanor held that the September 2025 order remained binding because it had neither been set aside nor lawfully discharged.
The court faulted the EFCC for proceeding with the criminal case without first challenging the subsisting order through the appropriate legal process.
The October ruling subsequently voided the criminal proceedings against Immanuel and IIHL before the Lagos State High Court.
The decision reinforced the principle that parties, including government agencies, are expected to comply with subsisting court orders until they are lawfully set aside or discharged.
Form 48 notice puts EFCC chairman on notice
The latest application for substituted service follows Immanuel’s efforts to initiate contempt proceedings over the commission’s alleged failure to comply with the relevant court orders.
Form 48 is an important procedural document in contempt proceedings. It notifies the person concerned of the alleged disobedience and warns of the legal consequences that may follow if the court’s order is not obeyed.
By permitting service through the EFCC Legal Department, the court has provided an alternative means of bringing the notice to Olukoyede’s attention after the reported difficulties with personal service.
However, the court’s refusal to automatically deem service sufficient means the legal implications of service remain subject to the applicable procedural requirements.
The latest development leaves the EFCC facing further legal scrutiny over its handling of the dispute, while the court process continues.
