The High Court in Accra has dismissed former National Service Person, (NSS), Deborah Seyram Adablah’s sexual harassment claims against banker, Ernest Kwasi Nimako.
The Court ruled that a relationship between the two was immoral and is not in conformity to acceptance of society.
Justice John Bosco Nabarese, the presiding judge while granting an application from the former Chief Finance Officer of First Atlantic Bank to strike the case of Adablah out, said “no reasonable cause of action arises” from the writ of Adablah.
The Court said the foundation of the said relationship is one that, the Court should not be invited to give judicial stamps to it since the act is against public policy.
“You cannot recover the price of something you have committed into an immoral act,” the Court ruled.
EIB Network’s Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, is reporting that, a cost of GHc10, 000 was awarded against Adablah after lawyers of Ernest Kwasi Nimako had asked for GHc50, 000.
“We ask for GHc50k considering the damage the Respondent (Adablah) has caused us,” Lawyers of Nimako argued.
“The GHc50, we ask for is on the lower side considering the damage that the Respondent’s actions have caused the applicant.
“It is immeasurable especially considering our present age of social media. We pray that the applicant be awarded this paltry some of GHc50,” the lawyers prayed.
For her side, she argued that, “The ruling of this court in July 2023,, the applicant (Nimako) was awarded cost GHc6, 000and since they were lovers, he should waive cost.”
Justice John Bosco Nabarese, after listening to the parties held that, the applicant is entitled to cost which is awarded based on the discretion of the court.
Consequently, a cost of GHc10k against the Respondent (Adablah).
*Background*
In January this year, Adablah dragged Mr Nimako, then Chief Finance Officer (CFO) and First Atlantic Bank to Court.
But, on July 21, 2023, the bank had its name cleared and removed from the action by the court for no wrongdoing following a counter application by lawyers of the bank, leaving Mr Nimako as the only defendant in the case.
The court subsequently awarded a cost of GHc6, 000 against Adablah who is the Plaintiff while a vehicle which is one of the subject matter in dispute had also been surrendered upon the court’s order.
*Alleged promises*
Plaintiff contended that, with all the assurances from the 1st defendant (Nimako) to exit the bank and not take up a contract and in return made representations and assurances to the her to the effect that he will give her the following:
“Lump sum working capital to start business, pay for her accommodation/Rent for 3 years, buy her a car, Pay her GHc3,000.00 a month, buy plaintiff a ring and pay her medical and other bills including paying for her to undergo a family planning treatment so that she will not give birth in the short term.”
She also alleged that, Mr Nimako promised to marry Plaintiff after divorcing his wife in the course of their parlor relationship since 1st Defendant’s relationship with his wife was challenged, with irreconcilable differences and the marriage had broken down beyond repairs and or reconciliation.
*Reliefs*
The Plaintiff per her claims is seeking the follows reliefs;
a) An order that the 1st defendant transfers title of car No. GC -7899-21 into the name of the plaintiff and or an order directed at DVLA to Register the Car No.GC-7899-21 into the name of the Plaintiff as the owner.
b) A refund of cost of repairs of Ghc10,000.00 which 1st Defendant promised to refund to the plaintiff but failed.
c) An order that the Defendants pay to the Plaintiff the following: (i) 1st Defendant pays lump sum money to the plaintiff to enable the plaintiff start a business to take care of herself as agreed by the plaintiff and the 1st Defendant.
(ii) 1st Defendant pays the remaining two (2) years rent for Plaintiff’s accommodation or to pay same amount for the remaining two (2) years at the same rate at an alternative accommodation.
(iii) 1st Defendant to pay the outstanding arrears of Plaintiff’s 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.
(iv) General damages against the Defendants.
(d) Any other reliefs) the Court deems necessary including legal cost.
Source: Kasapafmonline.com/Murtala Inusah
