Deborah Seyram Adablah, the young woman who sued her “sugar daddy” for allegedly breaching an agreement to take care of her, has signaled her in
Deborah Seyram Adablah, the young woman who sued her “sugar daddy” for allegedly breaching an agreement to take care of her, has signaled her intention to appeal after the High Court in Accra dismissed the case on Tuesday [Nov 28, 2023].
In a ruling on November 28, Justice John Bosco Nabarese of the High Court in Accra acknowledged the immorality of the relationship between Adablah and the former Chief Finance Officer of a bank, but stated that there was no reasonable cause of action in Seyram Adablah’s writ.
The court firmly asserted that it should not endorse a relationship founded on immoral acts, stating, “You cannot recover the price of something you have committed into an immoral act.” Deborah Seyram Adablah was also ordered to pay a cost of GH¢10,000.
The ruling followed an application by the ex-CFO urging the court to strike Adablah’s case.
While Deborah Seyram Adablah refrained from giving interviews to the media after the court ruling, she took to social media, TikTok page, expressing her determination to continue the legal battle: “My lawyer will apply for the ruling and apply the LAW accordingly – The case is NOT OVER!”
Background
Ms. Adablah’s lawsuit, filed on January 23, 2023, alleged that Mr. Ernest Kwasi Nimako, whom she referred to as her “sugar daddy,” had made several promises to her.
Among the promises were the purchase of a car, payment for her accommodation for three years, a monthly stipend of GH¢3,000, marriage after divorcing his wife, and a lump sum to start a business.
Adablah claimed that Mr. Nimako took back the initially registered car after just a year and paid for only one year of accommodation, despite the promised three years.
In her court plea, Ms. Adablah sought an order for the “sugar daddy” to transfer the car’s title to her and return the vehicle. She also demanded the court order Mr. Nimako to fulfill the promised lump sum for starting a business.
Additionally, Ms. Adablah requested the court to instruct Mr. Nimako to pay the outstanding two years’ accommodation and cover her medical expenses resulting from a family planning treatment advised by the defendant.
Lawyers for the bank had asked the court to award cost of GH¢50,000 but Ms. Adablah’s lawyer pleaded with the court to reduce it to GH¢5,000.
COMMENTS