Deborah Seyram Adablah, a young woman who sued a former bank CFO, has been given a cost award of GH6,000 by the High Court in Accra.
Following a request submitted by the bank’s attorneys, the court, presided over by Justice Olivia Obeng Owusu, today (July 21) wiped out the name of the bank from the lawsuit.
Adablah’s attorney argued with the court to decrease the cost award from GH50,000 sought by the bank’s attorneys to GH5,000.
As a result of many interim petitions blocking the lawsuit, the substantive matter is currently pending.
The court’s decision for Adablah to turn up the automobile to the court registry has been overturned, according to an interim motion Adablah’s attorney filed with the court.
On the other side, Ernest Kwasi Nimako has submitted a temporary application to incarcerate Adablah for contempt.
Background
Deborah Seyram Adablah’s suit, filed on Monday, January 23, 2023, alleges that Ernest Kwasi Nimako, who 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 is 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 wants 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.
