Sophia Momodu, the mother of Imade, the first child of popular Nigerian singer, David Adeleke, fondly called Davido, has told a Lagos State High Court sitting in the Yaba area of the state not to grant the child’s custody to the musician.
Momodu, on Friday, July 5, 2024, told the court that Davido was not fit to be granted custody of their daughter because he is always not available and does not possess the ability to dutifully care for her.
She stated this in a counter-affidavit she filed in opposition to Davido’s suit seeking custody.
The Conclave recently reported that Davido filed a suit against Momodu over the custody of their 9-year-old daughter.
The suit was filed by Davido’s lawyers, Dr Olaniyi Arije, Okey Barrah, and others, at the Lagos State High Court.
Contrary to the singer’s claim that he had consistently fulfilled his financial obligations toward his daughter, Momodu told the court that Imade was almost sent away from school because the musician refused to pay her tuition fees.
She said while their relationship lasted, Davido failed to show true commitment or love toward their daughter.
Momodu said: “He always used the condition of my making myself available for his sexual pleasures as a pre-condition to visit our daughter or show some fatherly love to her.
“The applicant apart from his cravings for sex only comes around to spend time with our daughter when he wants to use our daughter for his media stunts or promotions.
“The applicant has always been known to go away and stop communicating with our daughter, to stop making payment for school fees and/or payment of maintenance for our daughter, whenever I refused his sexual advances.”
The respondent stated that Davido once threw her and their daughter out of his home in Atlanta, United States, during a summer holiday in 2017 and they ended up squatting with a friend.
Momodu stated that she never denied Davido access to his daughter, saying the singer chose to be “an absentee father”.
Davido drags Sophia Momodu to court over daughter’s custody
Momodu added she had been responsible for her accommodation, noting that Davido always had access to their daughter until he chose to abuse it by visiting at odd hours to demand sex.
She said: “When I noticed that the intention of the applicant for coming late at night to my house was not to visit our daughter but to seek sexual favours, even after our relationship had ended, I told him to desist from such late-night visits, as our daughter who needed to be in school in the morning would have slept at the time of his late-night visits.
“It was when I refused the applicant’s ingress into my house at ungodly hours of the night on the pretext of visiting our daughter that he decided to stop visiting or calling our daughter and this has been the pattern with the applicant all through his relationship with our daughter.
“Whenever I refused to be his sex slave, he would stop caring for his daughter and abandon her and use the fact of our daughter’s sadness due to his absence to force me to accede to his unwholesome demands.
“I have never stopped the applicant or his family members from coming to visit his daughter, calling or reconnecting with our daughter.”
The respondent further stated that contrary to Davido’s claim, he has not been faithful in paying their daughter’s school fees, having defaulted in 2021 and 2022 with the school writing to her in January 2023 over unpaid tuition fees.
Momodu told the court that Davido’s father, Adedeji Adeleke, later intervened and paid the school fees.
She stated that contrary to Davido’s claim, she has been the one paying the rent of the apartment where she lives with her daughter, adding that Davido did not buy any house for them.
Momodu said she has been providing the best care for her daughter, despite her father’s negligence and will continue to do so, as a loving mother.
The respondent was represented at Friday’s proceedings before Justice A. J. Bashua, by a legal team led by Dr Anthony Idigbe (SAN) of Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors.
Idigbe drew attention to the publication of a hearing notice in a national newspaper by Davido’s legal team, in which the name of his daughter was mentioned four times.
The judge agreed with Idigbe that while journalists were free to report, the child’s name ought not to be mentioned.
Justice Bashua, thereafter, ordered journalists, litigants, and all other counsel not involved in the case to leave the courtroom during the hearing.
