Court upholds N5m fine against Daddy Freeze for adultery

3 Min Read

The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has upheld a fine imposed on popular Nigerian On-Air Personality, Ifedayo Olarinde, known as Daddy Freeze, for committing adultery.

Earlier, on February 18, 2021, the High Court of Rivers State ordered Daddy Freeze to pay N5 million for committing adultery with Benedicta Elechi.

He was to pay the money to Paul Odekina, who was married to Elechi at the time of the affair.

“The sum of N5,000,000 is awarded against Ifedayo Olarinde… as damages for depriving the Cross Petitioner of the amiable consort of his wife… and for injury suffered as a result of his adultery with the Petitioner/Cross Respondent,” the court ruled.

The court also dissolved the marriage between Paul and Benedicta due to her affair with Daddy Freeze.

Daddy Freeze appealed the High Court’s judgment, arguing that Odekina did not try to serve him personally before applying for substituted service, which violated court rules. He also claimed that the service by courier was not effective.

In the Certified True Copy of the judgment dated June 26, 2024, obtained on Friday, the three-man panel of Justice Abubakar Talba, Danlami Senchi, and Hannatu Balogun dismissed Daddy Freeze’s appeal for lack of merit.

The court stated, “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… 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… 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.”

The court affirmed the judgment of the Rivers State High Court and made no order as to costs.

TAGGED:
Share This Article
Exit mobile version