Mavado Sued For Over $500,000 USD By Ugandan Promoter

Dancehall superstar Mavado is at the forefront of yet another legal battle and this time, he is being sued by a Ugandan show promoter named Chinedu Ikoroha of Cee Cee Entertainment Ltd. for a no-show in 2012 and 2013 at a concert that he was booked to headline in the country.

Based on court documents obtained by DancehallMag, the lawsuit was filed against the Jamaican entertainer in 2019 and it shows that the promoter is petitioning the court to receive reimbursement from Mavado for fees paid, as well as, for all damages incurred.

Additionally, a breakdown of the fees in the court document revealed that the promoter claims to have lost a total $350,000 USD as a result. This amount includes a $60,000 USD compensation paid to book Mavado, another $40,000 USD paid to his associates for their travel, security and accommodation and 50,000 USD in damages that resulted in the loss of two properties that were mortgaged to finance the concert.

According to the promoter, though the entertainer did not honour the agreement of the initial contract to perform in December of 2012, he was again booked to perform the following year on March 29, 2013. However, Mavado did not show up for that event also.

Consequently, Ikoroha is requesting that the “Gully Gad” compensates him for lost revenue in ticket sales which equates to approximately $545,000 USD, along with at least $110,000 that was paid to the entertainer and his team for the event.

The promoter’s lawyer, Theodore Geiger, PLLC, has since filed a motion for summary judgment in the New York Court, which is a request made by a party asking the court to decide all or part of a lawsuit without going to trial because there’s no dispute about the key facts of the case.

However, on April 12, 2022, Mavado’s attorneys-at-law, Adelman Matz P.C. and Sarah M. Matz submitted a pre-motion letter to the Judge on the case, contending that Ikoroha made several mistakes in honouring the Performance Agreement, which would render the contract void.

Two of the arguments presented are that the plaintiff did not honour the terms outlined by failing to meet the deposit schedule as well as failure to properly obtain travel visas. More so, the lawyers presented a myriad of other arguments supporting the entertainer’s position in the case.

A decision will thereafter be made by the Hon. Margo K. Brodie after Mavado’s lawyers formally responds by June 20 to the motion filed and the following month, the plaintiff’s lawyer will reply to that motion submitted by July 8.