play_arrow

keyboard_arrow_right

Listeners:

Top listeners:

skip_previous skip_next
00:00 00:00
playlist_play chevron_left
volume_up
Go to album
  • cover play_arrow

    LISTEN NOW: JafriQ Radio Live On Jafriq Radio

Entertainment

Nigeria: Breach of Contract – Court Dismisses Davido’s Preliminary Objection

todayJanuary 18, 2024 2

Background
share close

[ad_1]

A Delta State High Court sitting in Effurun has dismissed the preliminary objection by Nigerian-American singer, David Adedeji Adeleke, popularly known as Davido and his company, Davido Music Worldwide Limited, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the breach of contract suit against him by Brownhill Investment Company Limited over the annual ‘Warri Again Concert’.

Trial judge, Justice Nduka Obi, also dismissed another objection by Davido Music Worldwide and Israel Afeare, challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the defamation case filed against them.

In its ruling in Suit No. EHC/183/2023 between Brownhill Investment Company Limited vs. Davido & Davido Music Worldwide Limited bordering on breach of contract, the court dismissed the arguments by the defendants that the matter was a debt recovery case and premature since the claimant failed to issue a letter of demand requesting for a refund of monies claimed in the case.

It agreed with the submissions of the claimant’s counsel to the effect that the reliefs sought in the writ of summons must be read jointly and cannot be read in isolation to determine the nature of the suit.

The court held that the reliefs sought in the suit showed clearly that the matter was a breach of contract action which does not require the issuance of any letter of demand before filing and/or instituting same.

In the sister case bordering on defamation, the court held that the High Court of Delta State has territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the two cases bordering on defamation as it was established that the claimant, who is a resident of Delta State, was present in the state at the time the defendants posted the alleged defamatory publications online and also viewed the online defamatory statements whilst still in the state.