Side chick case: Court slaps Deborah Adablah with GH¢6,000 cost

The High Court in Accra has awarded cost of GH¢6,000 against Deborah Seyram Adablah, the young woman who has sued a former Chief Finance officer of the First Atlantic Bank.

That was after the court presided over by Justice Olivia Obeng Owusu, struck out First Atlantic Bank’s name from the case today (July 21) following a motion filed by lawyers of First Atlantic Bank.

Lawyers for the bank had asked the court to award cost of GH¢50,000 but Adablah’s lawyer pleaded with the court to reduce it to GH¢5,000.

Meanwhile the substantive case, is still hanging as numerous interim applications have stood in the way of the case.

Adablah’s lawyer, has filed an interim application asking the court to set aside the court’s order asking her to hand over the car to the court’s registry.

Ernest Kwasi Nimako, on the other hand has filed an interim application to commit Adablah to prison for contempt.

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 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.

Source: graphic online