• Follow us on:

It is not over! But do the 'konkonsa in your group pages' – Controversial ‘side chick’ reacts to social media trolls


6 months ago
Share on:

Deborah Seyram Adablah, the National Service Personnel who sued a senior-level banker, Ernest Kwasi Nimako, for sexual harassment, has reacted to the court's decision to throw out her case.

An Accra High Court on Tuesday, November 28, 2023, reportedly threw out a court suit initiated by Seyram Adablah against Ernest Kwasi Nimako, whom she refers to as her “sugar daddy”.

According to a report by mynewsgh.com, the court, in striking out the case, agreed with lawyers for Ernest Kwasi Nimako that the case lacked merit and fined her GHC10,000.

The lawyers for Kwasi Nimako argued before the court that Deborah Seyram Dablah, the ‘side chick’ did not disclose any reasonable cause of action and that “the contract she was seeking to enforce, if at all, was a 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.

Reacting to this in a post shared on social media, Deborah Seyram Adablah said that the case was not over.

According to graphiconline.com, Seyram stated in the post on her Tiktok page, that the judge, who presided over the case, erred in his judgement; adding that her lawyer would file for an appeal.

“A young male journalist approached me today and asked what I had to say to the ruling. You guys were equally in court Was that the right thing for the judge Justice John Bosco Nabarese to do?

“Well, my counsel will apply for the ruling and apply the law accordingly. The case is not over! Absolutely nobody is above the law,” she wrote.


Deborah Seyram Adablah had told the court that Kwasi Nimako had made several promises to her, which he failed to fulfil 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 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: Ghanaweb.com