Court Denies Davido’s Request for Stay of Proceedings In Amaju Pinnick Legal Battle
The Effurun Division of the Delta State High Court has rejected the plea for a stay of proceedings made by musician David Adeleke, popularly known as Davido. This application was in response to a N2 billion lawsuit filed against him by Brownhill Investment Company Limited, owned by former NFF president Amaju Pinnick, concerning the annual ‘Warri Again Concert.’
Amaju’s company initiated the lawsuit after Davido failed to fulfil his performance commitment at the Warri concert, despite being fully compensated. The company is seeking N2 billion in general damages from Davido, along with N150 million for legal and professional fees and an additional N30 million as the cost of filing the suit.
The defendants named in the lawsuit are David Adeleke, alias “Davido,” and his music label, Davido Music Worldwide Limited.
During a recent court hearing, Davido’s counsel, Norrison Quakers, SAN, informed the court about a pending appeal and the defendants’ motion for a stay of proceedings. Quakers also mentioned that the defendants had received the claimant’s counter affidavit to the motion for stay. However, he requested to withdraw the motion, asserting that the Court of Appeal had assumed authority over the ongoing proceedings in the lower court.
Amaju’s company’s counsel, Kelechi Onwuegbuchulem, did not oppose the withdrawal of the motion, and the court granted the request. In a bench ruling, the court upheld the claimant’s argument, stating that proceedings in the case would continue at the High Court until an order for further proceedings is obtained from the Court of Appeal.
The court also approved the motion on notice seeking to formalize Amaju’s company’s reply to the statement of defense. It instructed the filing of Pre-Trial Conference (PTC) forms within 14 days in accordance with court rules. The case was adjourned to March 21, 2024, for a pre-trial conference.
It is noteworthy that in his preliminary objection, Davido had challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the case should not be heard in Effurun. However, the court dismissed this preliminary objection in its ruling.
