After months of legal sparring over their daughter Imade, music star Davido withdraws his custody suit against Sophia Momodu, closing a chapter defined by grief, pride and the complex realities of parenting under a national spotlight.
The courtroom was quiet, but not calm.
On that February morning in Lagos, the air inside the High Court in Yaba felt heavy with more than legal argument. Lawyers shuffled papers. Observers leaned forward. At the centre of it all sat David Adeleke known to millions as Davido and across the divide, Sophia Momodu, the mother of his first child.
By the end of that day, something had shifted.
Within weeks, the music superstar would announce that he was withdrawing the custody case he had filed nearly two years earlier. There would be no judicial pronouncement on who was right or wrong, no dramatic ruling from the bench. Instead, there was an abrupt, emotional and deeply personal retreat.
“Nobody won, nobody lost but Imade,” Davido wrote later on social media. “There’s nothing to celebrate.”
It was both an ending and an admission: that some battles, even when legally arguable, may cost more than they yield.
A Case That Moved From Private To Public
The dispute centred on Imade Adeleke, born in 2015, the daughter Davido shares with Sophia. For years, their co-parenting arrangement appeared to function largely outside public view. There were birthday photos, coordinated celebrations and the occasional hint of tension but little that suggested imminent litigation.
That changed on April 17, 2024.
On that date, Davido filed a suit at the Lagos State High Court seeking joint custody of Imade or, in the alternative, “unfettered and unrestricted access” to his daughter. His legal team argued that he had consistently met his financial obligations covering school fees, accommodation and other expenses and that he sought only a formal structure to guarantee his role in her life.
The filing transformed a private parental disagreement into a matter of public record.
Sophia responded with a counter-affidavit that sharply contested the narrative. She rejected the suggestion that she had denied him access and described him, in court papers, as a father whose involvement had been inconsistent. She maintained that she had shouldered primary responsibility for raising their daughter and insisted that stability, not exclusion, guided her decisions.
From that point, the case became more than a custody dispute. It became a referendum at least in the public imagination on fatherhood, responsibility and celebrity.
The Emotional Breaking Point
The February 2026 hearing would prove decisive.
According to accounts from those present, tensions escalated when a submission from Sophia’s counsel referenced Davido’s capacity to provide care in a way that invoked the 2022 drowning of his son, Ifeanyi Adeleke. The mention was brief, but its emotional weight was unmistakable.
Davido was visibly shaken.
Outside the courtroom, he would later describe the remark as a “lowest blow”, an ethical line crossed in a deeply sensitive matter. The grief of losing a child had already been borne in the public eye, dissected across social media platforms and tabloids. To have it resurface in a legal contest over another child appeared to alter the emotional calculus of the case.
What had begun as a structured bid for joint custody now felt to him like something more bruising.
Shortly after, the decision came: he would withdraw the suit.
A Legal Withdrawal, A Public Statement
The announcement did not come through his lawyers first. It came through his X account.
In a series of posts, Davido clarified that he had never sought full custody, only joint custody and structured access. He insisted that his legal arguments were strong, but said the dispute had reached a level he could no longer continue.
“My daughter will grow up knowing I fought for her,” he wrote.
The posts were candid, raw and in moments sharply critical of what he viewed as unprofessional conduct in court. They also triggered a wave of online commentary. Supporters applauded his decision as dignified restraint. Critics questioned the timing. In one instance, a mistaken social media tag dragged an unrelated gospel artist into the conversation, prompting harassment before the misunderstanding was corrected.
The episode illustrated how quickly courtroom tension can metastasise in the age of digital immediacy. Legal filings are measured; social media is not.
Celebrity Fatherhood Under A Microscope
For Davido, whose career has spanned global tours and chart-topping albums, fatherhood has long been a public identity as much as a private role. His social media feeds often feature his children; birthdays become shared national moments.
Yet the custody battle underscored a more complicated truth: that visibility can both amplify and distort.
Celebrity fathers in Nigeria, particularly those navigating co-parenting after high-profile relationships, operate within layered expectations. There is the cultural weight of provision, the expectation to provide financially and demonstrably. There is the modern demand for emotional presence. And there is the scrutiny that magnifies any perceived absence.
Sophia, for her part, faced her own scrutiny. As a mother raising a child linked to one of Africa’s biggest music stars, she has long been subject to commentary, sometimes admiring, often invasive. Her insistence in court that she had not denied access and had prioritised stability positioned her not as a gatekeeper, but as a custodian of routine in a life inevitably touched by fame.
In many ways, the case became less about legal thresholds and more about narrative control.
Grief In Public Life
The shadow of Ifeanyi’s death hovered over proceedings even before it was explicitly mentioned. In 2022, the toddler’s drowning sent shockwaves through Nigeria’s entertainment industry. Public condolences poured in. So did speculation.
For Davido and his family, grief unfolded under a glare.
When that loss surfaced again in court, it reminded observers of the fragile line between relevance and retraumatisation. Legal systems are designed to assess capacity, stability and best interest. But when those assessments intersect with fresh wounds, the process can feel less clinical and more piercing.
By withdrawing the case, Davido appeared to signal that the emotional toll had eclipsed the legal objective.
Beyond Winning And Losing
As of now, the suit stands discontinued. There is no judicial verdict to parse, no legal precedent set.
Both parents have reiterated their commitment to Imade’s wellbeing. Neither has framed the outcome as victory.
In practical terms, the withdrawal returns their co-parenting to the informal realm from which it emerged guided by dialogue rather than court orders. Whether that arrangement proves sustainable will depend less on public opinion and more on private negotiation.
READ ALSO: Davido Slams Lawyer After Dead Son’s Name Raised In Custody Battle
For many observers, the episode has widened conversations about co-parenting in Nigeria: about when to formalise arrangements, about how celebrity complicates ordinary disputes, and about the risks of litigating family life in an era where every development trends within minutes.
It has also highlighted the speed with which online audiences assume adversarial roles celebrating, condemning, dissecting matters that are, at their core, intimate.
The Child At The Centre
Lost at times in the filings, the tweets and the commentary is the quiet fact that this story belongs, ultimately, to a child.
Imade Adeleke did not choose the courtroom, nor the headlines, nor the hashtags. Yet her name has anchored each phase of the dispute.
If there is a unifying thread in both parents’ public statements, it is the insistence that their actions were motivated by her best interest whether through formal legal clarity or through preserving emotional boundaries.
The custody case may have ended not with a gavel’s strike, but with a social media post. The drama may have subsided from public view.
But the deeper work of co-parenting with grace, of shielding a child from adult conflict, of balancing pride with compromise continues far from the cameras.
In the end, beyond celebrity and courtroom rhetoric, there remains a simple, enduring responsibility: to ensure that when Imade looks back on this chapter years from now, what she sees is not a battle, but evidence that she was and remains fiercely loved.