Deborah Seyram Adablah, the young woman who sued a former Chief Finance officer of the First Atlantic Bank, was awarded GH6,000 in costs by the Accra High Court.
That occurred after the court, presided over by Justice Olivia Obeng Owusu, removed First Atlantic Bank’s name from the case today (July 21), in response to a motion submitted by First Atlantic Bank’s counsel.
The bank’s lawyers requested that the court award a cost of GH50,000, but Adablah’s lawyer begged with the court to reduce it to GH5,000.
Meanwhile, the substantive matter is still hanging in the balance due to multiple interim applications.
Adablah’s attorney has filed an interim application requesting the court to vacate the court’s order requiring her to surrender the car to the register.
In contrast, Ernest Kwasi Nimako has filed an interim application to condemn Adablah to prison for contempt.
Background
Deborah Seyram Adablah’s lawsuit, filed on Monday, January 23, 2023, claims that Ernest Kwasi Nimako, whom she refers to as her “sugar daddy,” promised her various promises.
Nimako agreed to buy her the automobile, pay for her housing for three years, provide a monthly stipend of GH3,000, marry her after divorcing his wife, and offer a lump sum to start a business, according to the lawsuit.
Although the car was initially registered in Nimako’s name, the plaintiff says that he later took it back, depriving her of its use after only a year.
Furthermore, she claims that Nimako only paid for one year of housing while agreeing to cover three years.
The plaintiff is requesting that the court issue an order directing the “sugar daddy” to transfer the title of the car into her name and return the car to her.
She further requests that the court compel the defendant to pay her the lump sum in order for “her to start a business to take care of herself as agreed by the plaintiff and the defendant.”
Another request is for the court to require the “sugar daddy” to pay the arrears two years’ rent agreed upon between her and the defendant.
She is requesting that the court compel the defendant to pay her medical expenditures as a result of a “side effect of a family planning treatment” that the defendant advised her to do in order to avoid becoming pregnant.