Chocolate City vs Brymo: Case adjourned till May 7

Posted on April 09 2014 , at 03:13 am
Read more

By Steve Dede

Brymo and his Counsel, Photo: Steve/NET
Brymo and his counsel are fighting against Chocolate City’s breach of contract claim, Photo: Steve Dede/NET

The ongoing court case between Chocolate City and its estranged singer Brymo has been adjourned until Wednesday, May 7, 2014.

In a court sitting held at the Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos, Brymo’s Counsel, Nike Olagbende said she could not reply the defence and counter claims of the complainant Chocolate City because of a missing document.

I humbly apologise for failing to provide the required documents. The documents needed to be filed to the court will get to me tomorrow (Wednesday, April 8) so I promise to bring it to the court on Friday,’ Nike told the court.

Both parties’ counsels deliberated on a suitable date for adjournment and the presiding judge, Justice Buba I.N, approved Wednesday, May 7, 2014, to resume court hearing for the case.

Byrmo was accompanied by his manager Lanre Lawal, his girlfriend and his parents.

Brymo's dad has been a regular at court sittings
Brymo’s dad has been a regular at court sittings

Chocolate City General Manager Ibukun ‘Aibee’ Abidoye was also present at the court sitting that lasted from 1:30 PM to about 1:50PM.

Explaining to NET, the counsel said that the document mentioned to the court earlier is important to the case and would be handed over to the court soon.

Brymo’s manager, Lanre Lawal, told NET that the singer is already back to work as ordered by the court.

His album is now on the street,’ he told NET.

Chocolate City’s counsel T.O Lawal could not be reached for comments.

It will be recalled that Chocolate City sued Brymo for breach of contract, after he left the record label before the fulfilment or expiration of his contract.

Ⓒ Copyright NET News Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Please use sharing tools. Do not cut, copy or lift any content from this website without our consent.

Comments (1)

  • The employer is not obliged to provide work for his employee, except if such employment would affect the reputation of the employee for future employment………… It wast first established or considered in the case of an actor of a movie.

Comments are closed.

More related posts