INFIDELITY? Appeal Court Upholds Daddy Freeze’s ₦5 Million Adultery Fine—-The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt has upheld a ₦5 million fine imposed on the well-known Nigerian On-Air Personality, Ifedayo Olarinde, popularly known as Daddy Freeze, for committing adultery.
On February 18, 2021, the High Court in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, ordered Daddy Freeze to pay ₦5 million for committing adultery with Benedicta Elechi.
This payment was ordered to be made to Paul Odekina, who was married to Elechi at the time of the affair.
The court’s judgment stated, “The sum of ₦5,000,000 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.”
Additionally, the court dissolved the marriage between Paul and Benedicta due to her adulterous relationship with Daddy Freeze.
Unsatisfied with the High Court’s judgment, Daddy Freeze appealed to the appellate court for redress. His main arguments on appeal were that Odekina had not attempted to serve him personally before applying for substituted service, violating Order 7 Rule 2 of the Rules of the Trial Court.
He also argued that the purported service by substituted means, i.e., by courier, was ineffective, as evidenced by the affidavit of service, and that non-service violated the principles of natural justice.
In the Certified True Copy of the judgment dated June 26, 2024, and obtained by our correspondent on Friday, the three-man panel of Justices Abubakar Talba, Danlami Senchi, and Hannatu Balogun dismissed Daddy Freeze’s appeal for lack of merit.
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.
The judgment read in part: “Affidavit evidence can only be countered by a Counter Affidavit. As such, I found the procedure adopted by the Appellant alien to our jurisprudence.”
It continued, “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 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.”
According to the CTC of the judgment, Ola Faro and Ikobah Hilton represented the appellant, while N.A. Naenwi and Wilcox Abereton (SAN) represented the first and second respondents, respectively.
