Ugandan Promoter Moves For Summary Judgment In Lawsuit Against Mavado Over Failed Concert

Last month, Ugandan show promoter Chinedu Ikoroha of Cee Cee Entertainment Ltd moved for summary judgment in a 2019 lawsuit filed against Jamaican Dancehall superstar Mavado over his non-performance at a concert in the East African country in December 2012.

A summary judgment is where a judge decides the controversies in a case when there’s no real factual dispute between sides of the legal dispute, and/or where the law favors one side.

According to court documents obtained by DancehallMag, Ikoroha has alleged that he lost $350,000 USD from the whole affair, which includes the $60,000 USD he allegedly paid to Mavado, an additional $40,000 USD he allegedly paid to Mavado’s reps for travel, security, and accommodation expenses, and at least $250,000 USD in damages from concert expenses and the loss of two properties that the promoter said he had mortgaged to finance the concert.

The promoter is seeking at least $545,000 USD in lost revenue from ticket sales, and at least $110,000 USD allegedly paid to Mavado or otherwise spent directly on his behalf.

On May 9, 2022, Cee Cee Entertainment’s attorneys, Theodore Geiger, PLLC, informed the New York Court, where the matter is being heard, that they had served Mavado’s lawyers, Adelman Matz P.C. and Sarah M. Matz, with a Motion for Summary Judgment in the lawsuit.  Mavado’s attorneys have since promised to formally respond to the motion by June 20, 2022, while Cee Cee’s attorneys, will reply to their opposition to the motion by July 8, 2022.

The judge, Hon. Margo K. Brodie, will thereafter make a decision on the motion.

Why is Mavado being sued?

In 2019, Cee Cee Entertainment had initially sued Mavado, along with VP Records via its subsidiary Reggae Planet, which served as a booking agent for the So Special deejay.  In the event’s contract dated July 12, 2012, signed by Neil Robertson of VP Records and Chinedu Ikoroha, Mavado was booked to perform in Kampala on December 29, 2012.

The Ugandan also alleges that Mavado’s now ex-manager Julian Jones Griffith coordinated with him and provided passports for the Father God artist and his entourage, so flights could be booked for them, and that Mavado did a promotional video for the event, and advertised the show on Twitter and other social media platforms.

However, Mavado did not perform at that show, nor at another on March 29, 2013, the alternative date.  The Ugandan subsequently sued Mavado and VP for Breach of Contract, and leveled a fraud claim against VP (which is now dismissed), after Mavado denied that Reggae Planet was acting on his behalf, as the company had “no authority” to bind him.

Mavado is also caught up in another legal battle against his former Jamaican attorney-at-law Jennifer Messado. She is accused of defrauding the deejay, whose real name is David Brooks, of more than $30 million JMD (approx. $194,000 USD) in 2018.  That trial is set to begin on September 12, 2022, and Mavado will reportedly make his testimony via video link from the US.

VP cleared its name

In the Cee Cee Entertainment lawsuit, VP Records is not subject to the outcome of the recent motion of summary judgment.

In attempting to clear its name and invalidate Mavado’s denial that they were legally contracted to be his agent, VP had, among other things, submitted as evidence, the artist’s promotional video for the show, which was part of the agreement once 50 percent of the performance fee was paid.

“When Brooks failed to perform in Uganda as scheduled, the reason given was not that VP lacked authority to bind him.  The reason given was that Brooks had another concert scheduled in Nigeria a few days prior to the Ugandan concert and the Nigerian promoter failed to pay him for the Nigerian concert, such that Brooks decided to cancel everything in Africa,” VP’s attorney, Daniel J. Aaron, stated in his motion to dismiss the suit against the label.

VP also pointed out that Mavado apologized on Twitter for missing the December 2012 date, agreed to a makeup concert date in March 2013, and also did another promotional video.

On September 30, 2020, Judge Brodie dismissed the fraud claim against VP and also discharged VP Records from the case.

“These allegations all support the inference that not only did VP Records have the authority to bind Brooks when it entered into the Performance Agreement, but that Brooks, by his conduct, also confirmed that it did and took the necessary steps to fly to Uganda to perform, including providing his passport to Plaintiff to book his flight,” the judge had noted.

Mavado’s Defense

On April 12, this year, in a pre-motion letter, Mavado’s attorneys wrote to the Judge asserting their position that the motion for summary judgment will be denied.  The attorneys said that there are numerous disputed issues of fact that preclude granting a summary judgment against Mavado.

The lawyers argued that the Plaintiff cannot establish that a valid agreement existed or that the terms of same were encompassed in the purported Performance Agreement.

“To the contrary of Plaintiff’s implication, there is a genuine dispute as to whether the Performance Agreement was ever agreed to by Mr. Brooks, and whether he can be bound to the alleged terms thereof.    The undisputed evidence here demonstrates that at the time VP Records signed the Performance Agreement, VP Records no longer had any formal relationship with Mr. Brooks and had no written agreements providing it with any authority to act on his behalf,” the lawyers stated.

The lawyers also argued that VP Records’ “alleged witness gave what is at best speculative testimony that lacks any competency” and which may not even be admissible at trial.

“Even if such testimony would be admissible at trial, a reasonable fact finder could certainly find this testimony to lack credibility and thus find in Defendant’s favor. Additionally, testimony that Brooks agreed to do a show Uganda, while perhaps sufficient to suggest some alleged understanding, does not show that Brooks agreed to be bound by the Performance Agreement or that the understanding was with Plaintiff.   Plaintiff’s argument concerning representations of actual authority are not supported by the Performance Agreement itself,” they argued.

The Gullyside artist’s attorneys also argued that were also genuine issues of material fact including the failure of the Plaintiff to perform any of his obligations under the agreement”, which precludes him from bringing a breach of contract claim as a matter of law.

“Among other failures, Plaintiff admitted at his deposition that he did not make payments for travel or pay the balance of the deposit fee by November 1, 2012, the date these payments must have been paid pursuant to the Performance Agreement.   By Plaintiff’s own testimony and other documents produced in this matter, such monies were allegedly paid over five (5) weeks late,” the attorneys noted.

“The record also shows that Plaintiff failed to properly obtain travel visas and failed to make other payments, both as required under the Performance Agreement… This Agreement provides that if the deposit schedule is not met, the contract is void,” they added.

The attorneys argued as well, that the fact that the December 29, 2012 show did not take place, was not a breach of the Performance Agreement, but that the Ugandan’s failure to meet the deposit schedule voided the Performance Agreement and Mavado’s obligations.

The lawyers also said that there were conditions beyond Mavado’s control, pursuant to the terms of the Performance Agreement “namely that the show Brooks would have been coming from was cancelled due to a third party’s fraudulent conduct, which created a security risk for Brooks”.

“Thus, there was no breach by Brooks. Additionally, even if Brooks had been bound by the Performance Agreement, there is no evidence that Brooks did not ‘make every endeavor’ to furnish the performance within 120 days. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that there was an agreed upon re-negotiation as to all aspects of the performance,” the defence said.

“Plaintiff has also failed to prove that Plaintiff performed all allegedly re-negotiated terms, as, inter alia, Plaintiff failed to respond for weeks on end to timely provide certain consideration and to obtain travel visas while the parties were trying to work out a re-scheduled date,” it added.

With respect to Ikoroha’s statements that Mavado knew that he had mortgaged properties in order to stage the show, the artist’s lawyers said that the Plaintiff had failed to produce competent evidence connecting alleged expenditures to expenses of putting on the concert or that it was Plaintiff’s loss.

“Additionally, Plaintiff cannot recover any damages related to the alleged properties that Plaintiff’s principal mortgaged. Plaintiff has no standing to even assert such alleged damages, nor could such alleged damages have a sufficient causal nexus to the alleged events to be sufficiently foreseeable,” they noted.

“To the extent Plaintiff is including alleged lost profits in that number, such profits are “merely speculative” and are also not recoverable.    There must be a showing that the particular damages were fairly within the contemplation of the parties to the contract at the time it was made. Courts are hesitant to award lost profits to a new business, because when a business is just starting such future profits are especially speculative and difficult to prove,” they noted.

“Plaintiff, which was less than two years old at the time, had literally never promoted another show. Even Plaintiff’s principal had admittedly only had one other prior show through a different entity, which either lost money or broke even.   Plaintiff’s principal had no background in the entertainment industry or as a show promoter, and only worked for a few months with one company to promote non-comparable, smaller events. As such, any alleged lost profits are entirely speculative. Plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim and there are numerous issues of fact that warrant denial of Plaintiff’s anticipated motion,” they added.