The case in which a former National Service person, Deborah Seyram Adablah dragged a former banker, Ernest Kwasi Nimako to court over his failure to fulfil his promise during their amorous relationship has been thrown out by the High Court in Accra.
The court presided over by Justice John Bosco Nabarese in his ruling noted that, the relationship is not in conformity to public acceptance, adding the writ raises no reasonable cause of action.
The court has also awarded a cost of GH10,000 against Deborah Seyram Adablah.
After the ruling, Lawyer Nana Ama Amponsah representing Ernest Kwasi Nimako (Respondent) requested for a GHc 50,000 cost. She contended that, the GH50,000 cedis cost is immeasurable to the damage caused to the former banker especially in this day of social media.
Her request was, however, opposed by lawyers of Deborah Seyram Adablah. They were of the view that, the two were lovers, therefore, the court should waiver (do away with the cost).
The court after listening to both parties awarded a cost of GH 10,000 against Deborah Seyram Adablah.
Deborah Seyram Adablah, a former National Service person in January this year dragged a former banker, Ernest Kwasi Nimako to court after their amorous relationship hit the rocks.
Among the things she sought from the court were that, Ernest Kwasi Nimako should pay her a lump sum of money to start a business and also pay her two years rent as agreed.
The Defendant, Ernest Nimako on the other hand filed counter application praying the court to dismiss the case. They argue that, the case was frivolous and Warrants no court action.
Background
Deborah Seyram Adablah's suit, filed on Monday, January 23, 2023, alleges that Ernest Kwasi Nimako, whom she refers to as her "sugar daddy," made several promises to her.
According to the plaintiff, Nimako agreed to buy her the car, pay for her accommodation for three years, provide a monthly stipend of GH¢3,000, marry her after divorcing his wife, and offer a lump sum to start a business.
The plaintiff claims that although the car was initially registered in Nimako's name, he later took it back, depriving her of its use after just a year.
Additionally, she asserts that Nimako paid for only one year of accommodation, despite promising to cover three years.
The plaintiff was seeking an order from the court directed at the “sugar daddy” to transfer the title of the car into her name, and also give her back the car.
She was also asking the court to order the defendant to pay her the lump sum to enable “her to start a business to take care of herself as agreed by the plaintiff and the defendant.”
Another relief is for the court to order the “sugar daddy” to pay the outstanding two years' accommodation as agreed between her and the defendant.
Again, she wanted the court to order the defendant to pay her medical expenses as a result of a “side effect of a family planning treatment” the defendant told her to do in order not to get pregnant.
Source: Philipa Atanga/Court Reporter/Despite Media
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |
There was no chance in heaven that Seyram would win this case. First, many lawyers, politicians, and judges have side chics and toy boys; Akufu Addo had Serwa Broni, and Bill Clinton had Monica Lewinsky. To let Seyram win meant precedence would be set for all these side chics to run to court. How can these adulterous men and women in authority let that happen? I even sense collusion on the part of her lawyer and that of the defendant's lawyer. Is there a reason her lawyer did not advise her to get out of this? There was collusion. Hopefully, after this experience, she will understand better the underhand dealings of the court system. Shame on all women who use their cats to get ahead and double shame on men who have no self control.
Something must kill a man. Ernest, you see what you have done to yourself. These small girls dey worry for office too much. if you go f u c k too, they try to embarass you. Etw3 kakra a wokodii y3 nti, girl yi ama wa looso wo job. This one self, efo chop im plenty times before you chop but see how she has cost you. hmmm sorry. please beg madam and buy her V8. watie. wo hweawa, nexttime go for sidechick. awwww fine man like that
Aww @Kk sorry oooo. Your side-chick was not working and made you pay all the bills abi? Now this victory feels like a victory for you personally. Lol.
ɔbea guamanfo….
so lawyers paaaaa, is that all you can do for your client. what were the chances of the lady going to court hmmmmm then you beg to have no cost because they were lovers yet you led her to court to end up with this judgement. ok pls appeal
She should have been fined GHc100, 000. This is what the so-called side-chicks do and don't want to work.
Good ruling. It serves them both well. For Ernest, he has paid the price by losing his job and the reputational damage he has suffered. For the lady, she even has no reputation in the first place. She had benefited enough from Ernest and yet took action to pay Ernest back for engaging in such immoral conduct in the first place. Her resort to the court and involving the bank was just disgusting. Both of them were involved in an ommoral act and you will not expect her to have the courage to even speak publicly on this, let alone resort to the court. She has lost double or triple- the little reputation she ever had, lost the little flow of cash from Ernest, lost the car the guy bought for her and will also pay 10k penalty. Sosket!