Friday, July 5, 2024 - More details have emerged from the counter affidavit filed by Sophia Momodu, the mother of singer Davido's first child Imade Adeleke, in response to the Originating Motions filed by the singer.
Davido, real name David Adeleke, had
filed the motion through his lawyers, requesting joint custody or unfettered
access to their daughter, Imade.
The case was filed at the Lagos State
High Court on April 17, 2024.
Sophia's response comes as a counter
to Davido's request, marking the latest development in the ongoing custody
battle between the two.
The suit, marked LD/1587PMC/2024, has
as applicant Mr David Adedeji Adeleke, while Ms Sophia Momodu was listed as the
sole Respondent.
In a 100-paragraph counter-affidavit
to Applicant's Originating Motion, Sophia Momodu stated that their daughter
"is a minor (9 years old) and as her mother, she has stayed with me all
her life and I have been responsible for her welfare, upkeep, and
well-being."
In the suit, Sophia prayed the court
that custody of their daughter should not be granted to the Applicant citing
his controversial lifestyle which according to her "will expose our
daughter to more negative trauma at her tender age".
Giving other reasons while custody
should not be granted to the Applicant, the Respondent stated "that the
Applicant in his role as an artiste always travels and allows many unsavoury
male adults around him and his house, who will not be a good influence on an
impressionable young female child, like our daughter.
"The Applicant disagreed with
child therapy as the Applicant has been estranged from our daughter for a while
and safely and sustainably establishing a meaningful presence in our daughter's
life is paramount.
"The Applicant is an artist who
always travels around the world as mandated by his career and cannot possibly
be with our daughter at crucial times.
"The Applicant is married to
another woman, and they live together. The proper upbringing of our daughter by
another cannot be guaranteed.
"The fact that the Applicant lost his
son in his house in rather unfortunate and questionable circumstances shows
that our daughter cannot be placed in the custody of the Applicant."
Sophia Momodu stated she had been the
sole caregiver and primary financial provider for their daughter for the past
few years when the Applicant started failing in his commitment
"That as a mother my commitment
to ensure my daughter's well-being is unwavering," Sophia said, insisting
that the Applicant "has never been denied access to our daughter as I have
stated earlier."
"That by correspondence dated 14th of
July 2023 and 16th of January 16, 2024, I reiterated my commitment to ensure
that our daughter enjoys a healthy and supportive environment. I informed the
Applicant of his commitment and how the same will affect our daughter
negatively if not performed.
"That I informed the Applicant that unless he undertakes to change
his Inappropriate behaviors and overtures towards me, any visitation and or
access to our daughter should be done elsewhere other than my residence and in
the company of our daughter's nanny whom she is familiar with and has grown
quite fond of.
"That I know as a fact that the
Applicant is not fit to be granted custody of our daughter because he is not
available and does not possess the ability to dutifully care for her."
Sophia Momodu explained that her
relationship with the Applicant begun in 2014 which led to the birth of their
daughter in the year 2015.
"That we broke up in the year
2017 and sometimes in 2020 we made up and the relationship was finally ended in
2022," she added.
According to her, throughout their
relationship, she had always attempted to break up with the Applicant as
"I was tired of his lies and unfaithfulness, but he always used the
withdrawal of his fatherly duties and maintenance for our daughter as a pawn to
force me to resume the sexual relationship with him."
Sophia Momodu stated that contrary to
paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Motion, "I
finally ended my relationship with the Applicant in the year 2022 after years
of abuse and lies by the Applicant."
She added, "Before this period I
and the Applicant have always jointly been responsible for the upkeep of our
daughter".
"That throughout the course of
our relationship the Applicant has never shown true commitment or love for our
daughter as 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.
"That the Applicant apart from
his cravings for a sex slave only comes around to spend time with our daughter
when he wants to use our daughter for his media stunts or promotions.
"That the Applicant has always
been known to go away and stop communicating with our daughter, to stop making
payment of school fees and/or payment of maintenance for our daughter whenever
I refuse his sexual advances.
"That at a time when we were in
Atlanta for the summer holiday in 2017, the Applicant kicked me and our
daughter out of his house where we were staying for vacation even though he
knew we had nowhere else to go. I ended up squatting with a friend till I was
able to get another accommodation for me and our daughter to complete our
vacation.
"That further to the above the
Applicant stopped all forms of communication with his daughter and only resumed
same after six months period of my entreating him to speak with our
daughter," she submitted.
The Respondent avowed that contrary
to paragraph 6 of the Applicant's affidavit, "I have been the one paying
the rent of the house where I live with our daughter."
0 Comments