<<Print>>

The Accra High Court has dismissed the case against First Atlantic Bank by former National Service person, Deborah Seyram Adablah who has alleged sexual harassment against the bank and its former Chief Finance Officer, Ernest Kwasi Nimako. 

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

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

Lawyers for the bank had asked the court to award a cost of GH¢50,000 but Adablah’s lawyer pleaded with the court and the Plaintiff offered to pay GH¢5,000.

Meanwhile, Lawyers of the Plaintiff, Deborah Seyram Adablah had on June 15,2023 filed a motion to set aside the ruling of the Court for execution and order for preservation of the vehicle which is one of the subject matters in dispute.

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

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

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.

Background

Adablah who is the plaintiff filed a writ alleging sexual harassment against Ernest Kwesi Nimako, former Chief Finance Officer and the bank.

Following the action, the Bank had requested that its name be withdrawn from the lawsuit filed by the former NSS worker.

In that application dated January 24, this year, the Bank requested that seven paragraphs of the writ be dismissed “on the ground that they disclose no reasonable cause of action against the applicant.”

It contends that Paragraphs 7,8,9,10,11,31,32,33,34,36 and 37 which were requested to be excluded comprise portions of the writ that accuse the bank of watching on for female workers being harassed sexually by senior male officers of the bank.

The substantive case alleging sexual harassment against Kwasi Nimako would be dealt with after this preliminary application.

Substantive case

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.