<<Print>>

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.