The Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), on Monday, closed its defence against Chappal Energies Nigeria Limited’s suit, which seeks a reversal of its directive ordering the company to change its business name.
The CAC disclosed this before Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, despite previously seeking the court’s leave to present another witness.
Nairametrics had previously reported exclusively that the CAC and Chappal Energies were locked in a legal battle over the Commission’s directive that the firm change its business name on allegations of “deceiving the unsuspecting public.”
While the company is accusing the CAC of breaching its right to a fair hearing, the business registration agency insists it acted within the ambit of its governing laws.
What they are saying
- At the resumed hearing, Chappal Energies was represented by its lawyer, Oluseun Awonuga, SAN, while N. Ibrahim held a brief for CAC counsel.
- N. Ibrahim rose and informed the judge that although the matter was slated for continuation of the defence, the Commission had resolved to close its case.
“My Lord, the matter is slated today for continuation of defence. However, the substantive counsel (of the CAC), having conferred with his client, has decided to close his case,” Ibrahim said.
- He consequently asked for a date for the adoption of the final written addresses.
- On his part, Awonuga responded that he had no opposition to the CAC legal team’s application.
- After hearing from the lawyers, the judge adjourned the matter to May 6 for the adoption of final written addresses.
- Nairametrics reports that the adoption of final written addresses is the last stage before the court delivers its judgment on a matter.
What You Should Know
Through its court filings, Chappal Energies 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.
- Awonuga noted that Chappal Energies commenced business with the “incorporated name” in the oil and gas industry as approved by the CAC and 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 urged the court to reverse the CAC’s directive, insisting that the decision would “negatively impact” Chappal Energies’ business operations.
- In its defence 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 “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 Commission urged the court to dismiss the suit.
Backstory
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 (summons) 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 the necessary action, and the case was adjourned to February 23, 2026, for continuation of the CAC defence.
