The Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) and Chappal Energies Nigeria Limited are locked in a legal battle at the Federal High Court, Abuja, over the Commission’s directive that the firm change its business name on allegations of “deceiving unsuspecting public,” Nairametrics exclusively reports.
The pending case was commenced in 2024 by Chappal Energies, according to court documents exclusively reviewed by Nairametrics.
The company accuses the CAC of breaching its right to a fair hearing and is seeking a reversal of the Commission’s directive.
However, the business registration agency insists it acted within the ambit of its governing laws.
On December 4, 2025, both the oil company and the Commission took turns to confirm and contest the testimony of a CAC official regarding the business name reversal directive issued to Chappal Energies.
What Chappal Energies is saying
Through its court filings, Chappal Energies, represented by its lawyer, Oluseun Awonuga, SAN, argued that in its bid to become a corporate legal entity under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), its promoters conducted a public search on the CAC website to verify that no existing entity bore a name similar to its preferred name.
According to him, after due diligence, the CAC “communicated its approval of the name Chappal Energies Nigeria Limited to the promoters” on October 26, 2023, and subsequently issued a Certificate of Incorporation on January 15, 2024.
He noted that Chappal Energies commenced business with the “incorporated name” in the oil and gas industry as approved by the CAC.
The Plaintiff added that it later became aware of a petition submitted by Chappal Petroleum Development Company Limited (CPDC) to the Administrative Proceedings Committee (APC) of the CAC, alleging name similarity.
Following this, the senior lawyer said the CAC wrote to his client requesting a name change due to “the similarity in both names which is likely to deceive.”
He argued that his client was denied fair hearing before the name reversal directive was issued.
The lawyer further contended that the presence of similar words such as “Chappal” or “Energy” has never stopped the CAC from registering companies, adding that the Commission has consistently approved multiple companies with similar or identical names once such names do not cause deception or confusion.
He urged the court to reverse the CAC’s directive, insisting that the decision will “negatively impact” Chappal Energies’ business operations.
CAC’s defence statement
In its defense statement filed in court and seen by Nairametrics, the Commission faulted Chappal Energies’ arguments.
The CAC confirmed that it initially approved the company’s name but later reversed the approval after receiving a petition from CPDC and concluding its investigation.
According to the petition, two directors of CPDC allegedly resigned to set up Chappal Energies with the intention to allegedly “deceive the public.”
The Commission added that Mr. Ufoma Emmanuel, a former director of CPDC, allegedly resigned and quickly trademarked the business name “Chappal” to allegedly “confuse the unsuspecting public” into believing they were dealing with CPDC.
The CAC noted that Chappal Energies’ directors failed to respond to notices sent to them at the time, despite allegedly being duly informed.
The Commission maintained that the same law empowering it to register Chappal Energies also authorizes it to compel a business name change when necessary.
It urged the court to dismiss the suit.
What we know so far
On December 4, 2025, the CAC began its defence against Chappal Energies by presenting its official, Mr. Yusuf Hamza.
- Under examination by S. U. Madaki, Esq., Hamza adopted his Witness Statement on Oath dated October 10, 2024, confirming that the Commission issued a letter directing the Plaintiff to change its name.
- Madaki applied for the documents attached to Hamza’s Statement on Oath to be admitted as evidence in court.
- Awonuga responded that his objections to the documents would be addressed in his Written Address.
- Justice Mohammed Umar subsequently admitted into evidence the “Letter dated 27th March 2024 and the Certificate of Incorporation” as defence exhibits.
- During cross-examination, the Plaintiff’s counsel asked the witness whether a complaint requesting a company to change its name was a minor issue that did not require both parties to be heard.
“I cannot give an opinion on this. The committee has to sit and form an opinion, as one person cannot form such an opinion,” the witness replied.
- After cross-examination, Madaki applied for a subpoena (summon) to be issued to the Manager or any Senior Officer of Chappal Petroleum Development Ltd to tender before the Court an endorsed copy of their application letter to the CAC dated March 14, 2024.
- The court directed the registrar to take necessary action.
The case was adjourned to February 23, 2026, for continuation of defence.
What is at stake?
The legal dispute underscores a business name registration controversy between the CAC and one of Nigeria’s notable oil companies.
The Court’s eventual decision will significantly impact public perception of the parties involved and could set precedents for name registration disputes in Nigeria.
Meanwhile, Chappal Energies is engaged in another legal dispute with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission(EFCC) linking the Commission’s allegations to a civil suit.
