The court in striking out the case agreed with lawyers for Ernest Kwasi Nimako that the case lacks merit.
The lawyers for Kwasi Nimako, from the prestigious Kulendi@Law, argued before the court that Deborah Seyram Dablah did not disclose any reasonable cause of action and that “the contract she was seeking to enforce if at all, was an legal contract.”
In striking out the case, the court agreed with the counsels for Kwasi Nimako that no substantive issue was raised by Deborah Seyram Adablah in her suit.
Background
Deborah Seyram Adablah had told the court Kwasi Nimako made several promises to her which he failed to fulfill and later jilted her.
According to her, Nimako agreed to buy her a car (which he did); 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 claimed 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 asserted that Nimako paid for only one year of accommodation, despite promising to cover three years.
The plaintiff was 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 asked 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: mynewsgh.com
