A high court in Delta has dismissed the preliminary objections raised by Davido to challenge the N2.3 billion lawsuit filed against him by Amaju Pinnick.
Last year, Pinnick filed a lawsuit alleging that Davido breached a contract to perform at the 19th edition of the ‘Warri Again’ concert in Delta.
The former president of the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) claimed that Davido failed to appear at the event scheduled for October 26, 2023, after receiving a payment of $94,500.
He further alleged that he incurred an additional $18,000 for a private jet chartered to transport Davido and his team.
Davido, however, challenged the jurisdiction of the Delta state high court in Effurun to hear the matter.
The singer, through his lawyers, argued that the issue should be treated as a debt recovery case and that Pinnick should have issued a demand letter before resorting to legal action.
Davido’s lawyers also denied that Sosoberokon, who signed the contract on his behalf, was his authorised agent.
But during a recent hearing, Nduka Obi, the presiding judge, dismissed Davido’s objection to challenge the jurisdiction of the court to hear the defamation case.
The court also dismissed the arguments made by Davido’s lawyers that the matter was a debt recovery case and was premature since Pinnick failed to issue a letter demanding a refund.
It held that the reliefs sought in the suit showed that the matter was a breach of contract which does not require the issuance of any prior letter of demand.
The court held that it has territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the two cases bordering on defamation.
This, it said, is because Pinnick, who is a resident of Delta, was present in the state when Davido allegedly posted the defamatory publications online.
The court said it will proceed with the hearing and determination of all the cases filed against the singer.
Meanwhile, it was gathered that when the idea of an out-of-court settlement was suggested, Davido’s counsel said efforts were in top gear to resolve the case.
Pinnick, however, said no concrete arrangement has been made because the defendants want the settlement to be on their terms.
The cases have been adjourned for hearing of other pending applications.