Court dismisses Davido’s preliminary objections to Amaju Pinnick’s suit

On Wednesday, a Delta State High Court 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 in connection with the annual Warri Again concert.

Pinnick and his company, Brownhill Investment Company, filed a lawsuit against Davido and his record label, Davido Music Worldwide, in November 2023.

Last October, Pinnick chastised Davido for failing to appear at the 19th edition of the concert despite receiving $94,600.

“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,” he said.

The court dismissed another objection raised by Davido Music Worldwide and Davido’s aide Israel Afeare, questioning the court’s authority to hear the defamation case filed against them.

The claimant, through its lawyer, Kelechi Onwuegbuchulem, is asking the court to award N2bn as general damages against Davido and his music label.

The claimant is praying the court to award against Davido the sum of N150m as legal and professional fees and an additional sum of N30m as the cost of filing the suit.

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.

In a related defamation case, the court asserted its authority to hear and decide on the matter within its jurisdiction.

According to the court, it has been confirmed that the claimant, who lives in Delta, was in the state when the defendants published the supposed defamatory content online.

Furthermore, they also accessed and saw the defamatory statements while in the state.

The cases have been adjourned for hearing of other pending applications.