We have yet another update on the Chocolate City v. Brymo matter. You can read it below. But, here is what it means in English:
1. Chocolate City’s lawyers filed a motion, the interlocutory motion I discussed, because that is the motion that was to be heard today.
2. For that motion, they were required to serve Brymo with a notice of the motion and accompanying papers and give him the opportunity to respond. They failed to do so.
3. When they showed up in court today, the court noted the lack of service to Brymo, and Brymo’s absence. The court also noted that Chocolate City’s lawyer was unprepared. The Court decided to postpone the case until December 5th, 2013. By then, Brymo should be served.
4. An insider thinks it is a tactical move on the part of Chocolate City. There might be some merit to the insider’s position. For one, Attorney Seye Lawal is on this case. He has represented the likes of EME, among others. He and his legal team know or should know the basic service requirement, especially given his experience. The attorney representing Chocolate City showed up in court without the case file? That don’t even sound right, at all, given the kind of publicity this case has garnered and caliber of the firm representing Chocolate City.
We also know they are in settlement negotiations and may be able to resolve this case faster without having to make the motion argument and either lose, which would be very bad from a publicity level, or win which would still bring so much polarizing media and public attention. So, indeed, the lack of service may be purely tactical.
As an added reason, remember Chocolate City already has an interim injunction against Brymo on lock down, which precludes him from working. So, the delay doesn’t affect Chocolate City but significantly affects Brymo. He can’t work until they return to court to determine if he will be stuck with not being able to work for anyone until 2016.
See the updated news story below.
“The legal battle between Chocolate city limited v. Ashimi Olawale a.k.a Brymo was brought forward for hearing before Justice BUBBA of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos today, 11th November 2013.
This is coming after months of settlement talks between Audu Maikori-led Chocolate City and Brymo over an alleged breach of contract by Brymo.
The plaintiff, Chocolate City Limited, who was represented by Ms. C.o Madubuko from L&A legal consultants, failed to serve the defendant, Brymo, who was not represented at the court, the motion on notice and other originating process stating the claims of chocolate city and the reliefs sought against the defendants.
The Chocolate City lawyer it would seem appeared before the court without the case file, and if she was desirous of diligently pursing the matter, she would have brought a motion for substituted service, thus, the case was adjourned till 5th of December 2013.
An Industry insider present at the court proceeding and doesn’t want his name in print feels the failure of Chocolate city’s lawyer to come to court with the court file and also serve the defendant, Brymo, the necessary court notice is an attempt to keep the case in limbo and to stunt the upward swing of Brymo.” via 360nobs.com
- African and global superstars celebrate Africa Day Concert 2021
- AML 151: Meet Emem Ema, the Artist Manager Extraordinaire Managing Mr. P
- AML 150: Mental Health & Substance Abuse in the Afrobeats Music Industry
- AML 149: Intellectual Property, Race and Unjust Music Contracts with Prof. Kevin J. Greene
- AML 148: The Business of Music in Ethiopia with Negus Alemu & Leyla Konjo