Sophia Momodu Fire Back At Davido, Reveals Top Secret About Popular Singer
Sophia Momodu, the estranged wife of singer, David Adeleke, otherwise known as Davido, has filed a response to the Originating Motions seeking custody of their daughter, Imade.
Davido had filed the motion through his lawyers, requesting joint custody or unfettered access to 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.
The originating motion was supported by a 44-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Davido himself.
The singer had narrated that though he had a relationship with Momodu that led to the birth of their child on May 14, 2015, the relationship had ended some years ago “while we resolved to take care of our child as biological father and mother.”
Davido said, “That it is on record that I have been responsible for the payment of all the school fees of my daughter to provide her with the best education possible and to meet all her educational needs without a hitch.
“That I have also been providing money for the rent of the apartment where the respondent resides with our daughter.”
The singer said that as a result of the love he had for Imade, he purchased and offered the mother a N200m worth apartment in a condominium gated community with a swimming pool and 24-hour power and water supply at Oniru, Victoria Island, Lagos. An offer he claimed was turned down.
He said, “The respondent rejected the offer to stay and live at the above-described secured Oniru apartment, which had been purchased already, but demanded that I continue to pay N5,000,000 annually for a rented facility as my own contribution towards my daughter’s accommodation.”
Davido said to ensure that the interest of Imade was well-catered for, “I bought a Range Rover Sport Utility Vehicle for the use of the child and the respondent to meet the transport needs, including transportation of the child to and from school, etc.”
But the respondent (Sophia Momodu) in 100-paragraph counter-affidavit to Applicant’s a Originating Motion, 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.”
She 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.”
In her avowement, the Respondent 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,” 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.”
She 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”.
According to her, throughout the checkered history of 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.”
The Respondent who is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Bella Done Luxe, Atlanta, United States of America, 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.” Adding that “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 s3xual 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.”
“That we had reached an agreement to contribute equally to the rent of the house where I live with our daughter but when I ended our relationship, the Applicant refused to contribute his quota and insisted that he could only pay Five Million Naira (N5,000,000) annually as his contribution to accommodation for his daughter, knowing fully well that this amount cannot pay half the rent for our accommodation in the community where I live with our daughter.
“That further to the above at no time did the Applicant inform me that he purchased a property worth N200,000,000 for our daughter. That when via a letter by my solicitors dated 6th June 2023, I suggested that the Applicant may choose to purchase a house for our daughter in her name and set up a trust for her as a way to have a permanent resolution to her having suitable and safe accommodations, the Applicant via a letter of 14th September 2023, from his Counsel informed me that the Applicant will not buy any property for our daughter but will only contribute for the rent in the sum of N5,000,000 per annum.”
“That contrary to paragraph 39 of the affidavit in support of the Originating Motion, our daughter has been in my custody from birth till date and I have been taking care of her mental, social, moral, and financial needs even by contributing my financial commitment as agreed with the Applicant.”
