Brand Deal Dispute: 22BET Sues Comedian Sabinus Over €40,750 Advance

Popular Nigerian comedian and brand influencer Emmanuel Chukwuebuka Ejekwu, popularly known as Oga Sabinus, has been dragged before the Lagos State High Court for allegedly failing to provide marketing and promotional services after receiving a €40,750 advance under a brand ambassador agreement with hospitality firm Arcadia Hospitality Limited, also known as 22BET.

The company is asking the court sitting at Tapa area of the state to order Sabinus and his manager, Obinna Nwabufo, also known as Mike Premium, to jointly and severally refund the €40,750, which it described as an advance payment under the agreement.

The suit, marked LD/ADR/6557/2026, was filed by 22BET through its lawyer, Obafemi Oluwole, before Justice Adebayo Oyebanji.

Read Also: 2027: Lagos, Kano, Kaduna Lead As Voter Register Hits 110m

In its statement of claim, the company alleged that it entered into a Marketing Service Agreement with Oga Sabinus in February 2024, under which he was engaged to provide marketing, promotional and brand ambassador services for the 22BET brand.

Under the agreement, the claimant said, the first defendant was to receive total remuneration of €163,000, with €40,750 payable upfront and the balance payable quarterly.

22BET claimed that it paid the agreed advance in two equal instalments on February 8 and 9, 2024, into a cryptocurrency wallet allegedly provided by the first defendant on behalf of Ejekwu’s management.

The claimant alleged that Sabinus and his manager subsequently confirmed that the wallet had been credited.

However, 22BET claimed that, despite receiving the advance, the comedian failed to fulfil any of the agreed contractual obligations.

The services allegedly not provided included publishing promotional content on social media, displaying the 22BET logo, participating in television commercial productions, adding a 22BET link to his social media biography, creating an Instagram highlight story, and attending 22BET events or press conferences.

The company said it made several attempts to secure performance under the agreement, but allegedly without success.

According to the claimant, the defendants later contended that, although the cryptocurrency wallet had been credited, they ultimately received no value from the payment.

22BET rejected that explanation, arguing that it did not extinguish the contractual obligations, particularly because the agreement allegedly required any modification, waiver or variation to be in writing and signed by both parties.

Following the alleged non-performance, the company said it issued demand letters dated June 1, 2026, formally terminating the agreement and seeking repayment of the €40,750 advance.

The claimant argued that, under the agreement’s termination provisions, the entire advance was refundable because the contracted services had allegedly not been provided.

22BET is asking the court to declare that Ejekwu breached the Marketing Service Agreement and to order the defendants to jointly and severally refund the €40,750.

It is also seeking annual interest of 10 per cent on the sum from February 8, 2024, until judgment, as well as general and special damages and the cost of the action.

The court has fixed October 20, 2026, for the hearing of the claimant’s application for an order permitting substituted service of the suit and other processes on the two defendants.

The defendants have not filed their responses to the suit.