Side Chick To Cough GH¢10,000 After Court Trashes Case

Deborah Seyram Adablah, the side chick who sued her banker lover for refusing to take care of her financial needs, was yesterday dealt a deadly blow as a High Court in Accra dismissed her suit before it.

The young woman who was seeking among other things, an order on Ernest Kwasi Nimako, the banker, to continue taking care of her, suffered what would be her third defeat in the same case after she was ordered to pay a cost of GH¢10,000 to the defendant.

The court, in a ruling on a motion to dismiss filed by counsel for the banker, held that the relationship between the two was immoral and is not in conformity with acceptance of society.

Justice John Bosco Nabarese, the presiding judge, in his ruling found that no reasonable cause of action had arisen from the writ filed by the disgruntled lady.

It was the decision of the court that the foundation of the said relationship between the side chick and the sugar daddy was one that the court should not be invited to give judicial stamps to it since the act is against public policy.

Justice Nabarese said any agreement to promote sexual immorality is unacceptable, adding that, “You cannot recover the price of something you have committed into an immoral act.”

Losses

Ama Opoku Amponsah, counsel for Mr. Nimako, after the court’s decision had asked for a cost of GH¢50,000 to be awarded against the lady in favour of the defendant.

The sum, which she described as paltry, was a result of the damage the lady had caused the banker, adding that it is “immeasurable especially considering our present age of social media.”

Mohammed Atta, counsel for the side chick, on the other hand, prayed the cost be waived considering the fact that the two were lovers.

Justice Nabarese after careful consideration awarded a cost of GH¢10,000 against Deborah Adablah in favour of Mr. Nimako.

This brings to GH¢16,000, the total amount of money the side chick has to pay as cost since she filed the case against the banker in January this year.

She was also previously ordered to surrender a Honda Civic vehicle purchased for her by the sugar daddy until the final determination of the case, which has now been struck out.

The Writ

Ms. Adablah claimed that the banker had fulfilled his promise of renting her a two-bedroom apartment at the cost of GH¢1,500 a month but for only one year instead of three, which had since expired and she was on the verge of being evicted.

She further averred that the sugar daddy also bought her a Honda Civic at the cost of GH¢120,000, but the documentation to the vehicle is in the name of the defendant, who has failed to transfer the ownership to her.

She was asking the court to order the sugar daddy to transfer the title of the Honda Civic to her, a refund of GH¢10,000 as cost of repairs of the car which he promised to refund but failed.

She was also asking that the sugar daddy pays her a lump sum to enable her start a business to take care of herself as agreed between the two.

Again, she wanted the court to order the man to pay the remaining two years of her rent, the outstanding arrears of her monthly allowance from July 2022 to the date of judgment, and pay all medical expenses as a result of the side effects of the family planning treatment.

Source: Gibril Abdul Razak