Appeal Court Upholds Daddy Freeze’s N5m Adultery Fine

The Port Harcourt Court of Appeal has upheld the decision to fine popular Nigerian On-Air Personality Ifedayo Olarinde, widely known as Daddy Freeze, for committing adultery.

A High Court sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, had on February 18, 2021, ordered Daddy Freeze to pay the sum of N5m for committing adultery with one Benedicta Elechi.

He was ordered to pay the money to Paul Odekina, who was married to Elechi at the time the adulterous act was committed.

“The sum of N5,000,000 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.

The court also dissolved the marriage contracted between Paul and Benedicta due to her adulterous act with Daddy Freeze.

Not satisfied with the High Court’s judgement, Daddy Freeze approached the appellate court for redress.

Daddy Freeze’s main grounds of appeal were that Odekina did not attempt to serve him personally before applying for substituted service, which violates Order 7 Rule 2 of the Rules of the Trial Court.

He also held that the purported service by substituted means i.e., by courier was not effective as shown in the affidavit of service, adding that the non-service violates the twin pillars of the principle 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 Justice 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.

It partly read, “Affidavit evidence can only be countered by a Counter Affidavit. As such, I found the procedure adopted by the Appellant alien to our jurisprudence.

“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 it 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 judgement, Ola Faro and Ikobah Hilton appeared for the appellant while N.A. Naenwi and Wilcox Abereton (SAN) represented the first and second respondents respectively.