In her submission to the court on Friday, Momodu argued that Davido is unfit to have custody of their daughter due to his frequent unavailability and lack of capability to adequately care for her. She made these points in a counter-affidavit filed in response to Davido’s custody suit.
According to Momodu, throughout their relationship, Davido never demonstrated genuine commitment or affection towards their daughter. She alleged that Davido often conditioned his involvement with their daughter on her acquiescing to his sexual desires.
She further claimed that Davido primarily used their daughter for publicity purposes and neglected financial responsibilities whenever she declined his advances. Momodu recounted an incident in 2017 when Davido allegedly ejected her and their daughter from his Atlanta home during a summer visit, leading them to seek shelter with a friend.
Momodu clarified that she has never restricted Davido’s access to their daughter, asserting that it was Davido who opted to be an absentee father. She maintained responsibility for their housing and stated that Davido has not purchased a home for them.
Regarding their daughter’s schooling, Momodu disputed Davido’s assertion of consistent financial support, citing instances of unpaid tuition fees which she claims led to a notice from the school in January 2023, prompting intervention from Davido's father to settle the debts.
Momodu’s legal representation, led by Chief Anthony Idigbe, SAN, emphasized concerns over the public mention of their daughter’s name during court proceedings, in accordance with Lagos State Child’s Rights Law. The court subsequently restricted attendance during the hearing to parties directly involved in the case.
Following the proceedings, the court referred the case to the Alternative Dispute Resolution section for potential settlement during Settlement Week.