• ino ino Ads by Toktok9ja
  • Balvinciglobal Balvinciglobal
  • Murya-Magazine-Banner Murya-Magazine-Banner



More trou­ble for Niger­ian singer Run­town as he risks prison sen­tence

The on-going legal bat­tle over inces­sant breach of con­tract between Niger­ian pop star, Dou­glas Jack Agu, pop­u­lar­ly known as Run­town and his record label, Eric­many Enter­tain­ment, is still far from being set­tled. The label, which ini­tial­ly issued a court injunc­tion against the ‘Mad Over You’ croon­er few months ago claim­ing N65 mil­lion dam­ages has come hard on the singer again as it has slammed him with a N267 mil­lion suit at the Fed­er­al High Court, Abu­ja.

Image result for runtown

Pop­u­lar pop singer, Run­town, may be remand­ed in prison for con­tempt of court over the lin­ger­ing legal bat­tle between him and his for­mer record label, Eric­many Enter­tain­ment, as an Abu­ja High Court has sched­uled August 8, 2018, for him to appear in court to defend him­self on why the court should not sen­tence him to prison.

Image result for runtown

Accord­ing to court doc­u­ments made avail­able to Show­time, the ‘Mad over you’ croon­er dis­obeyed a court order served on him on May 10, 2018, restrain­ing him from fur­ther releas­ing any musi­cal work or per­form­ing at any musi­cal show in Cana­da, Namib­ia, Europe, Nige­ria or any oth­er place, in line with the order of the Hon­ourable Court.

Related image

Recall that instead of recon­sid­er­ing his actions by heed­ing the con­tempt warn­ing served on him by the court on July 4th, Runtown’s man­age­ment issued a press release in which he argued that the pre­vi­ous court order had expired. A state­ment by the man­age­ment of Eric­many on the recent devel­op­ment reads, “Recall that we served a con­tempt warn­ing from court on Run­town on 4th July, 2018 after he defied court order and released a song.

Related image

Rather than heed the con­tempt warn­ing and retrace his steps, he issued a press release in which he argued that the injunc­tion had expired. The injunc­tion was to stop things until the hear­ing of our motion seek­ing to freeze activ­i­ties until a deci­sion on his sta­tus (whether he had dis­charged his oblig­a­tions to us or not) is tak­en. It barred him from per­form­ing or releas­ing songs for the time being’.

Image result for runtown

The state­ment went on to add that, ‘the legal advice we received was that Run­town was wrong in his inter­pre­ta­tion of the rules of the court he relied on since he was already served with our motion and was rep­re­sent­ed in court on 31st May, 2018 when the court adjourned to 27th Sep­tem­ber, 2018 to hear the motion and the one filed by Run­town him­self! To turn around after that day to pro­ceed to do what the order barred him from doing, and what the motion served on him seeks to stop, is unjus­ti­fi­able under the 7‑day rule he relied upon.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *