By Tomisin Farinola
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The disputes raised by Shallipopi and Muyeez against Dapper Music involve allegations of breach of contract, exploitation, lack of transparency, and inhumane treatment. Below explains the fact of the case and analysis of the legal issues, supported by Nigerian case law.
2.0 FACT OF THE CASE
Shallipopi, Singer, songwriter, and rapper, Crown Uzama Evian, known professionally as Shallipopi, has parted ways with popular record label, Dapper Music over what he claims to be a breach of trust and lack of transparency. In a post on his Instagram page on Wednesday, December 11, the hitmaking rapper announced the split to the public in a release where he cited a breach of trust and lack of transparency as the reasons for his decision. Shallipopi accused the label of mishandling his finances and lacking transparency. Highlighted a conflict of interest involving a publishing deal with a subsidiary, Dapper Digital. He alleged that the Label attempted to enforce a perpetual contract taking 30% of his earnings indefinitely.
Additionally, Muyeez’s claimed he signed his contract as a minor and received no royalties despite releasing successful EPs. Accused the label of overworking him, neglecting his welfare, and allowing him to starve.
In response to the allegations, the label denied the allegations, claiming it treats its artists respectfully and that Muyeez’s contract was signed with his father’s consent.
3.0 LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE CASE
3.1. BREACH OF CONTRACT
3.1.1 Legal Issue Arising
Shallipopi and Muyeez allege that Dapper Music breached its contractual obligations by mishandling finances, failing to pay royalties, and imposing exploitative terms, including perpetual revenue-sharing.
3.1.2 Position of the Law
Under Nigerian law, a breach of contract occurs when a party fails to fulfill its obligations under the terms agreed upon. For the artists, the alleged denial of royalties and lack of financial transparency constitute fundamental breaches.
In Koiki v. Magnusson (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 615) 492, the court held that a breach of contract occurs when a party fails to meet the terms of the agreement, either expressly or impliedly. Shallipopi and Muyeez’s claims of unpaid royalties and lack of financial disclosure fall within this framework.
Additionally, the clause entitling Dapper Music to 30% of Shallipopi’s future earnings, even post-contract termination, could be deemed unconscionable.
In Orient Bank (Nig.) Plc v. Bilante International Ltd (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 515) 37, the court emphasized that unconscionable terms that exploit one party’s vulnerability may be voided.
3.1.3 Potential Remedies
- Rescission: In Akinsanya v. UBA (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 35) 273, the court recognized rescission as a remedy for a fundamental breach. Shallipopi and Muyeez may rescind their contracts on this basis.
- Damages: The artists can claim damages for unpaid royalties and loss of income under Eze v. Spring Bank Plc (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 113.
3.2 EXPLOITATION AND INHUMANE TREATMENT
3.2.1 Legal Issue Arising
The artists accuse Dapper Music of exploiting their creativity while neglecting their health and welfare.
3.2.2 Position of the Law
The Nigerian entertainment industry is not specifically regulated, but principles from labor law and equity apply to protect vulnerable individuals. Muyeez, being a minor at the time of signing, deserves special protection.
In African Reinsurance Corporation v. JDP Construction Nigeria Ltd (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 838) 609, the court emphasized the need for contracts to be fair and equitable. Contracts signed by minors, or where minors are overburdened, may be declared voidable.
The Federal Republic of Nigeria’s Labour Act, Cap L1 LFN 2004, prohibits inhumane treatment of workers. While the Act specifically applies to employees, its principles of fairness and decency can extend to artist-label relationships.
3.2.3 Potential Remedies
1. Voidable Contracts: Muyeez’s contract, signed as a minor, may be voided under Labour Act, Section 91, which invalidates exploitative agreements involving minors.
2. Restitution: The court in Larmie v. D.P.M. & Services Ltd (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 958) 438 supported claims for restitution where one party unjustly enriches itself at the expense of another.
3.3 LACK OF TRANSPARENCY
3.3.1 Legal Issue Arising
Both artists allege that Dapper Music failed to disclose financial records, violating their right to transparency.
3.3.2 Position of the Law
Nigerian law imposes a duty on parties to act in good faith and provide relevant information. Lack of transparency in financial dealings is a breach of fiduciary duty.
In Yakubu v. Paiko (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 711) 206, the court emphasized the duty to act transparently where one party relies on the other for financial disclosures. Dapper Music’s alleged refusal to provide financial records breaches this duty.
3.3.3 Potential Remedies
1. Audit and Accountability: The artists may seek an order for a forensic audit of the label’s financial dealings, as recognized in Okoya v. Santilli (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 206) 753.
2. Damages for Misrepresentation: Shallipopi may also pursue damages under A.I.D.C v. N.N.P.C (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1056) 138, where lack of transparency caused financial loss.
3.4 CONFLICT OF INTEREST
3.4.1 Legal Issue Arising
Shallipopi alleges a conflict of interest in being pushed into a publishing deal with a subsidiary of Dapper Music, prioritizing the label’s profit over his interests.
3.4.2 Position of the Law
Conflict of interest breaches the fiduciary relationship between an artist and their management. Nigerian courts recognize the need for full disclosure in such relationships.
In Obaseki v. African Continental Bank Ltd (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 167) 270, the court held that fiduciary relationships require full disclosure of conflicting interests. Dapper Music’s alleged failure to disclose its interest in the subsidiary breaches this duty.
3.4.3 Potential Remedies
The potential remedy available is to rescind the publishing deal.
In Pan Bisbilder (Nig.) Ltd v. F.B.N. Ltd (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 642) 684, the court voided contracts entered into under conflicting interests.
4.0 DAPPER MUSIC’S DEFENSE
Dapper Music denies the allegations, emphasizing the following:
- Guardian Consent: The label argues that Muyeez’s father consented to the contract, validating it under Idufueko v. Pfizer Products Ltd (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1420) 96.
- Artist Welfare: The label asserts that it treats its artists fairly and transparently.
4.1 LIMITATIONS TO THE DEFENSE
1. Guardian’s Consent in Exploitative Contracts: While consent was given, it does not absolve the label from liability for exploiting a minor. In Labour Act, Section 60, exploitative contracts involving minors are voidable, irrespective of guardian consent.
2. Burden of Proof: Dapper Music must provide evidence of royalty payments and compliance with contractual obligations, as upheld in U.T.C. (Nig.) Plc v. Philips (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1295) 136
4.2 IMPLICATION OF THIS ISSUE ON THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
This dispute sheds light on recurring issues in the Nigerian music industry, such as:
1. Unfair Contracts: Many artists, particularly young ones, sign contracts without adequate legal representation, leading to exploitation.
2. Regulation: The need for regulatory oversight, akin to the Nigerian Copyright Act, 2022 is critical to ensure fair treatment of artists.
4.3 LEGAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SHALLIPOPI AND MUYEEZ
Firstly, Initiate Legal Proceedings such by filing claims for breach of contract, unpaid royalties, and exploitation.
Secondly, seek a court-ordered forensic audit of the label’s financial dealings to recover royalties.
Finally, work with the Nigerian Music Industry Coalition to push for standardized contracts and artist protections.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The allegations by Shallipopi and Muyeez against Dapper Music reveal serious legal and ethical concerns in artist-label relationships. Supported by Nigerian case law, their claims of breach, exploitation, and lack of transparency warrant legal redress. The resolution of this dispute could serve as a turning point for fairness and accountability in the Nigerian music industry.
References
1. Koiki v. Magnusson (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 615) 492
2. Orient Bank (Nig.) Plc v. Bilante International Ltd (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 515) 37
3. Akinsanya v. UBA (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 35) 273
4. Akinsanya v. UBA (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 35) 273,
5. Eze v. Spring Bank Plc (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 113.
6. African Reinsurance Corporation v. JDP Construction Nigeria Ltd (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 838) 609
7. Nigeria’s Labour Act, Cap L1 LFN 2004,
8. Larmie v. D.P.M. & Services Ltd (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 958) 438
9. Yakubu v. Paiko (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 711) 206
10. Okoya v. Santilli (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 206) 753.
11. A.I.D.C v. N.N.P.C (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1056) 138,
12. Obaseki v. African Continental Bank Ltd (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 167) 270,
13. Pan Bisbilder (Nig.) Ltd v. F.B.N. Ltd (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 642) 684,
14. Idufueko v. Pfizer Products Ltd (2014) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1420) 96.
15. U.T.C. (Nig.) Plc v. Philips (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1295) 136
16. Source of the fact https://businessday.ng/breaking-news/article/dapper-music-responds-to-shallipopi-muyeez-allegations/
