ALLEGED ADULTERY: APPELATE COURT UPHOLDS DADDY FREEZE’S N5M FINE
Read Time:2 Minute, 36 Second
The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt has upheld the fine imposed on popular Nigerian On-Air Personality, Ifedayo Olarinde, also known as Daddy Freeze, for committing adultery.
On February 18, 2021, Daddy Freeze was ordered by a High Court in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, to pay N5 million for having an adulterous relationship with Benedicta Elechi.
Paul Odekina, who was Elechi’s spouse at the time of the adulterous deed, received an order from him for the money.
“The sum of N5,000,000 is awarded against Ifedayo Olarinde (the 2nd Cross Respondent to the Cross Petition) as damages for depriving the Cross Petitioner of the amiable consort of his wife (Petitioner/1st Cross Respondent) and for injury suffered as a result of his adultery with the Petitioner/Cross Respondent.
Daddy Freeze filed an appeal with the appeals court because he was unhappy with the ruling made by the High Court.
The primary grounds of Daddy Freeze’s appeal were that Order 7 Rule 2 of the Trial Court’s Rules was violated by Odekina’s refusal to personally serve him ahead of applying for substituted service.
Additionally, he held that the alleged substituted method of service—by courier, as demonstrated by the affidavit of service—was ineffective and that the failure to serve violates the two fundamental tenets of the natural justice principle.
The three-person panel made up of Justice Abubakar Talba, Danlami Senchi, and Hannatu Balogun denied Daddy Freeze’s appeal for lack of merit, according to the Certified True Copy of the judgement, dated June 26, 2024, that our correspondent was able to secure on Friday.
The court ruled that if the appellant wanted to overturn the trial court’s judgment due to non-service, he should have filed a counter-affidavit against the affidavit of service and then sought to set aside the trial court’s judgment.
It partly read, “Affidavit evidence can only be countered by a Counter Affidavit. As such, I found the procedure adopted by the Appellant alien to our jurisprudence.
“Where the Appellant wants the judgment of the trial court to be set aside for non-service, he ought to have approached the trial court by filing a Counter affidavit against the affidavit of service he seeks to set aside and consequently set aside the judgment of the trial court. Thus, as it is in the instant appeal there is nothing filed by the Appellant to counter the affidavit of service of the Process Server filed in
“Hence, therefore I resolved the sole issue for determination against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondents. The appeal therefore lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed
“Accordingly, the judgment of the Rivers State High Court in Suit No. PHC/403MC/2012 delivered on the 18th February 2021 by J. Akpughunum, is hereby affirmed. I make no order as to costs”.
Ola Faro and Ikobah Hilton represented the appellant, while N.A. Naenwi and Wilcox Abereton (SAN) represented the first and second respondents, respectively, according to the CTC of the ruling.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0