Side Chick Case: Court Throws Out Case Against Sugar Daddy, Awards GH¢10k Cost Against Seyram2 min read
The High Court in Accra has dismissed the case filed by Deborah Seyram Adablah, the young woman who has sued a former Chief Finance officer of a bank claiming sexual harassment.
In a ruling today (Nov 28) the Court presided over by Justice John Bosco Nabarese held that although the relationship between the two was immoral and was not in conformity to acceptance of society, there was no reasonable cause of action arising from the writ filed by Adablah.
The court said the foundation of the relationship was one that the Court should not be invited to give judicial stamps to adding : “You cannot recover the price of something you have committed into an immoral act”.
The plaintiff has been slapped with a cost of GH¢10, 000.
The ruling comes after the former Chief Finance Officer of the bank filed an application urging the court to strike the case of Adablah.
Background
Deborah Seyram Adablah’s suit, filed on Monday, January 23, 2023, alleged 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 claimed 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 asserted 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 is 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.
