- A Delta State High Court dismissed Afrobeat star Davido’s objections to a breach of contract case filed by former Nigeria Football Federation president Amaju Pinnick and Brownhill Investment Company Limited regarding the annual Warri Again Concert.
On Wednesday, a Delta State High Court sitting in Effurun dismissed Afrobeat star Davido’s preliminary objections to a breach of contract case filed by former Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) president Amaju Pinnick and Brownhill Investment Company Limited regarding the annual Warri Again Concert.
Pinnick and his firm, Brownhill Investment firm, filed a lawsuit against Davido and his record label, Davido Music Worldwide, in November 2023.
Last October, Pinnick criticized Davido for failing to appear for the 19th edition of the event despite receiving $94,600. He said:
“We paid Davido $94,600 on the 6th of April. We paid $18,000 for his plane. If he says he’s a big boy, we will tell him we are bigger than him.”
The court dismissed another objection submitted by Davido Music Worldwide and Davido’s aide, Israel Afeare, who questioned the court’s jurisdiction over the defamation lawsuit filed against them.
The claimant, represented by Kelechi Onwuegbuchulem, is requesting the court to award N2 billion in general damages against Davido and his music business.
The claimant is requesting that the court give Davido N150 million in legal and professional expenses, as well as an extra N30 million in suit filing costs.It also wants the court to order the singer “to tender a public apology on all the 1st defendant’s social media accounts/handles and in two national daily newspapers for four consecutive days, to the claimant and attendees.”
The defendants argued that the lawsuit was premature and a debt recovery case since the claimant had not sent a letter of demand seeking repayment of the money they had claimed in the complaint.
However, the court dismissed their claims in its decision on Wednesday.
The court acknowledged the argument made by the claimant’s counsel that the requested reliefs should be considered together rather than separately to understand the nature of the lawsuit.
The court also held that the requested reliefs indicated a contract violation, eliminating the need for a formal letter of demand.
