Deborah Seyram Adablah, the young woman who gained attention for suing her alleged “sugar daddy,” Mr. Ernest Kwasi Nimako, for breaching their agreement, is determined to appeal after the High Court in Accra dismissed her case on November 28, 2023. The ruling by Justice John Bosco Nabarese acknowledged the moral complexities of the relationship but stated there was no reasonable cause of action in Adablah’s writ. Despite the setback, Adablah remains resolute, expressing her commitment to continue the legal battle.
Court’s Ruling and Stance
Justice Nabarese, in his ruling, recognized the immorality of the relationship between Adablah and Mr. Nimako but asserted that the court should not endorse a relationship founded on immoral acts. The court emphasized that one cannot seek recovery for something committed in an immoral act. Adablah was further ordered to pay a cost of GH¢10,000. The ruling followed an application by Mr. Nimako urging the court to strike Adablah’s case.
Adablah’s Response and Determination
While Adablah refrained from giving interviews to the media after the court ruling, she took to her social media, specifically TikTok, to express her determination to continue the legal battle. In a post, she stated, “My lawyer will apply for the ruling and apply the LAW accordingly – The case is NOT OVER!”
Background of the Lawsuit
Adablah’s lawsuit, filed on January 23, 2023, alleged that Mr. Nimako, her “sugar daddy,” had made several promises, including 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.
Legal Demands
In her court plea, 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, 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.
Cost Dispute
Lawyers for the bank had initially requested the court to award a cost of GH¢50,000, but Adablah’s lawyer pleaded for a reduction to GH¢5,000.
