EXCLUSIVE: Davido Exits US Copyright Lawsuit Through Settlement as New York Court Orders Permanent Ban Against Three Men Who Failed to Defend Themselves

By TrackNews Online Investigative Desk

A United States federal court has entered a default judgment against three men accused of copyright infringement in a lawsuit involving Nigerian music superstar David Adedeji Adeleke, popularly known as Davido, permanently restraining them from reproducing, distributing, adapting or publicly performing the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works without authorisation.

The judgment, entered on January 23, 2026, by Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, came months after Davido and music distribution company TuneCore, Inc. separately exited the litigation through settlements.

The three men named in the judgment are Emmerson Amidu Bockarie, professionally known as Emmerson; Carlos Jenkins; and Marques Miles II.

According to the court record, none of the three defendants filed an answer to the complaint or entered an appearance through a defence lawyer before the court entered judgment against them.

However, while the court granted default judgment on liability and issued a permanent injunction, it awarded no monetary damages, ordered no transfer of royalties and made no award of legal costs against the three men.

The development, documented in the court’s January 23 judgment, marks the latest stage in a copyright dispute that began in April 2025 and initially named Davido among the defendants.

TrackNews Online’s review of the case documents indicates that Davido was not among those against whom the January judgment was entered.

DAVIDO SETTLED AND LEFT THE CASE IN MAY 2025

The lawsuit, Martins Chukwuka Emmanuel et al. v. Wynn Records et al., was filed on April 4, 2025, by Martins Chukwuka Emmanuel, Abel Great Umaru, Kelvin Ayodeji Campbell and David Ovhioghena Umaru.

The plaintiffs accused the defendants of infringing their copyright in a 2022 song titled Work, which they said had been registered with the United States Copyright Office under registration number SRu 1-599-163.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs shared the song with Davido in January 2022 for a possible musical collaboration.

They alleged that Davido subsequently passed the material to Bockarie, who allegedly incorporated vocal and instrumental elements of the plaintiffs’ work into his 2024 release, Strawberry on Ice, without appropriate credit or payment.

The allegations formed the basis of the plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims under Section 501 of the United States Copyright Act.

The complaint also raised a separate issue concerning a written settlement agreement allegedly signed by Davido on March 14, 2025.

According to the plaintiffs, the agreement required the singer to pay $45,000 by March 24, 2025, and transfer 40 per cent of the composition royalties and 20 per cent of the sound recording royalties associated with Strawberry on Ice.

The plaintiffs alleged that Davido subsequently breached that agreement, prompting the legal action.

However, Davido’s involvement in the case ended in May 2025.

On May 15, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a notice voluntarily dismissing their claims against the singer following a settlement between the parties. Judge Broderick approved the dismissal on May 16, 2025, with each side responsible for its own legal fees and costs.

Davido was consequently terminated as a defendant.

The settlement and dismissal were reported by Peoples Gazette on May 17, 2025.

Importantly, the January 2026 default judgment does not establish liability against Davido. It applies specifically to Bockarie, Jenkins and Miles.

The terms of Davido’s settlement should also be distinguished from the allegations in the original complaint. The dismissal establishes that he exited the litigation through a settlement, but the available judgment against the three remaining individuals does not determine the singer’s liability.

TUNECORE ALSO EXITS THROUGH A SEPARATE SETTLEMENT

Davido was not the only defendant to leave the case before the final judgment.

TuneCore, Inc., a music distribution company named in the original complaint, also reached a settlement with the plaintiffs and was subsequently dismissed from the proceedings.

Court records indicate that Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang, who was overseeing general pretrial management, issued a text order on September 10, 2025, acknowledging that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court subsequently received the plaintiffs’ notice of voluntary dismissal against TuneCore on September 26, 2025.

Judge Broderick approved the dismissal on September 29, 2025, with each side bearing its own legal fees and costs.

TuneCore was then terminated as a defendant.

With Davido and TuneCore out of the litigation, the proceedings continued against the remaining individuals.

The court’s January judgment, however, did not impose liability on every person or company named in the original complaint.

THREE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE LAWSUIT

The court’s decision followed a series of missed deadlines and procedural steps concerning the three remaining defendants.

According to the docket, Bockarie was served with the summons and complaint by mail on June 11, 2025. His response was due on July 2, 2025.

Jenkins and Miles were served on July 19, 2025, with their responses due on August 11, 2025.

The court record cited in the proceedings shows that none of the three defendants filed an answer to the complaint.

Nor did a defence lawyer enter an appearance on behalf of any of them.

Following Bockarie’s failure to respond, the Clerk of Court entered a certificate of default against him on July 30, 2025.

The plaintiffs subsequently sought certificates of default against the other remaining defendants, which were entered on October 8, 2025.

A certificate of default is a procedural step that records a defendant’s failure to respond. It does not, by itself, constitute a final judgment on liability.

The plaintiffs still had to seek a judgment from the court.

COURT WARNED PLAINTIFFS OVER FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Despite obtaining the necessary default entries, the plaintiffs initially failed to move the case forward promptly.

On September 29, 2025, Magistrate Judge Wang issued an Order to Show Cause directing the plaintiffs to explain why the action should not be recommended for dismissal against the remaining defendants for failure to prosecute.

The court had also cancelled an initial case management conference scheduled for October 7, 2025.

In response, the plaintiffs informed the court that they intended to seek default judgment after the necessary certificates of default had been entered.

Those certificates were entered on October 8, 2025, but the application for judgment did not immediately follow.

On November 14, 2025, Judge Wang ordered the plaintiffs to file their motion for default judgment by November 26, warning that failure to comply could result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed against the remaining defendants.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed the motion.

Judge Broderick held an Order to Show Cause hearing on January 23, 2026, the same day the court entered its default judgment against Bockarie, Jenkins and Miles.

The sequence illustrates how the case nearly stalled even after the plaintiffs had secured procedural defaults against the defendants.

PERMANENT INJUNCTION BARS UNAUTHORISED USE OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS

The January 23 judgment grants default judgment on liability in favour of the plaintiffs against the three men on Count I of the complaint, which concerns copyright infringement.

The court’s order addresses the defendants’ alleged reproduction, adaptation, distribution and public performance of the disputed copyrighted work.

It permanently restrains and enjoins the three men from reproducing, adapting, distributing or publicly performing the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works without their express authorisation.

The injunction also covers conduct intended to cause, assist, enable, facilitate, encourage, promote, induce or materially contribute to such unauthorised activities.

Its scope extends beyond the three defendants themselves to specified categories of associated persons and entities, including their officers, directors, employees, agents, subsidiaries, distributors, publishers, labels, administrators, assigns and licensees.

The order also applies to persons acting in concert or participating with the defendants who have notice of the injunction.

The ruling therefore imposes a permanent restriction on the three men concerning the unauthorised use of the plaintiffs’ protected works.

However, the judgment should not be interpreted as a finding against every individual or company originally named in the lawsuit.

$150,000 CLAIM ENDS WITHOUT A MONETARY AWARD

One of the most notable aspects of the judgment is the absence of a financial award.

The plaintiffs’ original complaint sought $150,000 in damages, a transfer of specified royalty interests associated with Strawberry on Ice, and injunctive relief.

Yet the January 23, 2026, judgment awarded no damages against Bockarie, Jenkins or Miles.

It also did not order the transfer of the royalty interests sought in the complaint or award legal costs.

Consequently, although the three defendants were adjudged liable for copyright infringement and made subject to a permanent injunction, the judgment itself directs no payment of money by them.

This distinction is important: a default judgment on liability does not automatically mean that every financial demand in a complaint has been granted.

The court’s actual orders, rather than the original demands made by the plaintiffs, determine the relief awarded.

ROYALTY TRANSFERS REMAIN AN UNRESOLVED QUESTION

The original complaint also alleged that Davido’s March 2025 settlement required the transfer of 40 per cent of the composition royalties and 20 per cent of the sound recording royalties associated with Strawberry on Ice.

However, the January 2026 judgment against the three remaining defendants does not address or order those transfers.

TrackNews Online’s review of publicly accessible records did not identify a corresponding record of assignment in the Copyright Office searches consulted for this report.

That absence does not establish that no transfer occurred. It means only that the review did not locate a publicly recorded assignment confirming the alleged transfers.

The available court documents also do not establish the complete terms of the settlements reached by Davido and TuneCore.

Without further documentation, the precise financial arrangements arising from those settlements cannot be conclusively determined from the default judgment.

WYNN RECORDS AND MATTHEW QUINNEY NOT INCLUDED IN THE JUDGMENT

The original lawsuit also named Wynn Records and Matthew Quinney.

However, neither is identified as a party against whom the January 23 default judgment was entered.

The publicly accessible docket materials reviewed for this report do not show that either was served or that a certificate of default was entered against either of them.

Accordingly, the judgment should not be represented as a ruling against Wynn Records or Quinney.

The final order specifically concerns Bockarie, Jenkins and Miles.

WHAT THE JUDGMENT MEANS

The case demonstrates the different outcomes that can emerge from a single copyright dispute.

Davido exited the litigation through a settlement and voluntary dismissal in May 2025. TuneCore was separately dismissed following a settlement later that year.

The three remaining individual defendants did not respond to the complaint, and the court ultimately entered default judgment against them in January 2026.

The resulting order establishes liability against those three defendants on the copyright infringement claim and permanently restrains specified unauthorised uses of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.

It does not impose a monetary award, order royalty transfers or determine liability against Davido, TuneCore, Wynn Records or Matthew Quinney.

The January 23 judgment is recorded as Document 59 in Martins Chukwuka Emmanuel et al. v. Wynn Records et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02833-VSB, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The case’s latest documented outcome is therefore a permanent injunction and a default judgment on liability against three defendants who failed to defend the action—not a $150,000 damages award.

TRACKNEWS ONLINE
Investigative Desk