A Nigerian Court Says Runtown’s 2016 Eric Many Contract Is Still Binding, Awards the Label ₦319m and Declares the Name ‘RUNTOWN’ Belongs to It. The Sources Disagree on Whether the Order Is Final.

On 16 July 2026, a judge at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Abuja held that the recording agreement Runtown signed with Eric Many Limited in June 2016 remains valid and has not been terminated in accordance with the agreement, ordered the artist to pay the label roughly ₦319m, declared that the name and trademark “RUNTOWN” belong to the label, and ordered him to deliver master recordings sufficient for one album. Runtown says he is handing over nothing. And the accounts of the order read for this piece do not agree on the single most consequential question: whether this is a final money judgment or an interim order binding him only until the case is finally decided.

What the order does

The order does four separate things, and they are four different legal relationships.

First, a declaration about contract status. Justice O. A. Musa held that the recording agreement executed in June 2016 “remains valid and binding” and “has not been terminated in accordance with the provisions of the agreement.” That is not a finding about who owns any recording. It is a finding that the contract Runtown says he left is still running, and that he remains subject to its obligations.

Second, a money order. The court ordered payment of ₦266,694,755.08 as the outstanding balance of the label’s investment and expenses not yet recouped under the contract, plus ₦50,000,000 in general damages and ₦3,000,000 in costs. Every naira runs from Runtown to Eric Many Limited. Three of the four accounts state that direction explicitly; none states it the other way. One reports 10 per cent annual post-judgment interest until the sum is liquidated.

Third, a declaration about a trademark. The court declared that the name and trademark “RUNTOWN” belong to the label under the agreement. The route to that finding, on the fuller accounts, is that the artist had assigned the relevant licensing rights to the company under the contract and then attempted to register his own professional name as a trademark anyway. That attempted registration is itself one of the breaches found.

Fourth, specific performance and a restraint. He was directed to deliver master recordings sufficient for one album, and restrained from recording, performing at concerts or engaging in commercial music activity outside the label’s management until his obligations are fulfilled.

The masters order covers one album, not a catalogue

This is the point most likely to be reported wrongly. The court ordered delivery of masters sufficient for one album, the undelivered album the label has said since 2018 it was owed. No account read for this piece reports the court declaring that Eric Many owns the whole of Runtown’s recorded output, including material released after he went independent.

The trademark declaration and the masters order do different work. A court can hold that a company controls a stage name, and separately that an artist owes it one album, without deciding who owns every track cut in the intervening decade. On the current record, catalogue ownership is open, and Runtown’s own response points at that gap. Writing on 30 July 2026, he said “you think after 9 years I’ll give you passwords and access to my catalogue?? Lol nice try… Keep trying,” and accused the label’s owner of deceiving people with “fake court orders.” That is a refusal to comply rather than a legal answer, but it confirms that access to the catalogue sits with him, not the label.

The finding the sources will not settle: is this final?

Here the record contradicts itself. Two accounts describe an order operating pending final determination. One frames the 16 July document as made while the matter is still before the court. Another says Runtown “must continue to comply with every obligation contained in the contract until the legal dispute is finally determined.” That is interlocutory language, describing a position held while a trial runs.

A third account presents the same document as a judgment, with general damages and post-judgment interest attached. Those are the furniture of a final judgment, not an interim order. A fourth reports the ₦319m total without characterising it either way.

Both cannot be true. Either the ₦319m is an enforceable final award now accruing interest, or it is part of an interlocutory package governing conduct while the substantive case continues. Which one it is determines whether the label can enforce against the artist’s assets, and whether the restraint on performing is temporary or settled. This desk could not resolve it, because the underlying court document was not obtained.

An appeal court removed performance restrictions in 2024

The restraint is not new, and it has been undone before. Runtown signed in 2014 on a multi-million-naira 360 deal reported at a 60 per cent revenue share to the company; Ghetto University arrived in November 2015; the relationship broke down through 2016, with the label obtaining interim restraining orders and “Mad Over You” released that November regardless; a fresh suit followed in 2018 claiming the same ₦267m.

Then, on 23 January 2019, the same judge suspended the restrictions barring him from performing. On 18 January 2024, the Court of Appeal set aside interlocutory orders restricting his performances. In July 2026, the first-instance court reimposed a restraint. This desk read neither the 2024 appellate order nor the 2026 order directly, so their relationship cannot be stated as established. But the public sequence is an appellate court removing performance restrictions and a lower court putting them back roughly thirty months later, a tension either side’s lawyer would want explained before treating the July order as settled.

One number, unchanged since 2018

The ₦266,694,755.08 recoupment figure is not a 2026 calculation. It is the same figure, to the kobo, the label asserted publicly in 2018, when it said the contract was due to expire on 22 June 2018 with that amount still outstanding and an album undelivered. The order awards the sum as pleaded. Whether it was tested, audited or simply adopted cannot be determined without the judgment text.

Recoupment is the engine of this dispute. Under a 360 deal of the type described, the label’s spending sits as a debt against the artist’s earnings until it clears. An artist can be commercially successful, as Runtown was, and still be in the red on the label’s ledger, because the ledger is the label’s and the artist rarely gets to audit it.

What is established, and what is not

Established from sources fetched and read directly: the 16 July 2026 date, the court and judge, the holding that the June 2016 agreement remains valid and unterminated, the ₦319m total and the direction of payment from artist to label, the declaration on the “RUNTOWN” name and trademark, the one-album masters delivery order, the restraint on commercial activity, the breach findings on the attempted trademark registration, the “Call Me” and “Weekend” collaborations and bookings handled through Sparrow Media, and Runtown’s 30 July response in his own words.

Not established, and not asserted: the suit number, which no source read carries. The primary court document, which was not obtained, so this record rests on trade press reporting of the order rather than the order itself. Whether the order is final or interlocutory. The kobo-level breakdown and the 10 per cent interest rate, carried by only one of the four accounts, the others reporting ₦53m as an undifferentiated costs-and-damages figure that reconciles arithmetically but is not independently confirmed. The registered corporate name of the counterparty, appearing across sources as Eric Many Entertainment, Eric Many Limited and Eric Many Records, with no CAC record checked. Whether the Nigerian trademark registry records the mark in the label’s name, as opposed to a court declaring that it should. And who owns the masters of what Runtown has released through Soundgod Music Group, the imprint he launched in June 2018. Allegations circulating alongside this story that fall outside the ownership and money questions, and that could not be verified against any document, are deliberately excluded.

What this means for artists

Walking away does not terminate anything. Runtown announced his exit, launched his own company and released a decade of music independently. None of that ended the contract. A recording agreement ends the way the agreement says it ends: by notice, by expiry, by a termination clause properly exercised, or by a court. Acting as though a deal is over is not a termination, and a court can say so in 2026 about a document signed in 2016.

Your name may not be yours. The most damaging line here is not the money, it is the declaration that the stage name belongs to the company. If an agreement assigns rights in a professional name and the artist later tries to register that name independently, the attempt can itself be found to be a breach. Before signing, know whether the name is licensed to the label for the term or assigned outright, and get that in writing separately from the recording clauses.

Recoupment balances do not expire when the term does. This contract was reported as due to expire in June 2018. The claim survived it by eight years and is now the largest number in the order. An unrecouped balance is a debt, and a term ending does not extinguish it. Ask for an audit right at signing, because the only figure ever litigated is the one on the label’s books.

Finally, appellate wins are not permanent. Restrictions set aside on appeal in 2024 reappeared at first instance in 2026. In a dispute running a decade across at least three courts, no single order is the end of it.