Deborah Seyram Adablah, who sued First Atlantic Bank and its former Chief Finance Officer for sexual harassment, was fined GH6,000 after the bank settled the lawsuit.
First Atlantic Bank’s lawyers had filed a motion seeking the court to remove the bank’s name from the case. The request was approved by the court presided over by Justice Olivia Obeng Owusu on July 21, 2023.
According to Graphic Online, the bank’s counsel wanted the court to give a GH50,000 fee, but Adablah’s lawyer begged for a GH5,000 decrease.
The substantive litigation is now pending due to various interim applications hindering the procedures.
Deborah’s lawyer has filed an interim application requesting the court to throw aside the court’s order for her to turn over the car to the court’s registry, while Nimako has filed an interim action to put her in prison for contempt.
Background:
Deborah Seyram Adablah’s lawsuit, filed on Monday, January 23, 2023, claims that Ernest Kwasi Nimako, whom she refers to as her “sugar daddy,” promised her various promises.
Nimako agreed to buy her the automobile, pay for her housing for three years, provide a monthly stipend of GH3,000, marry her after divorcing his wife, and offer a lump sum to start a business, according to the lawsuit.
Although the car was initially registered in Nimako’s name, the plaintiff says that he later took it back, depriving her of its use after only a year. Furthermore, she claims that Nimako only paid for one year of housing while agreeing to cover three years.
READ ALSO: First Atlantic Bank CFO vs Deborah: Court seizes car given to Sidechick
The plaintiff is requesting that the court issue an order directing the “sugar daddy” to transfer the title of the car into her name and return the car to her.
She further requests that the court compel the defendant to pay her the lump sum in order for “her to start a business to take care of herself as agreed by the plaintiff and the defendant.”
Another request is that the court order the “sugar daddy” to pay the outstanding two years’ rent as agreed between her and the defendant.
She is requesting that the court compel the defendant to pay her medical expenditures as a result of a “side effect of a family planning treatment” that the defendant advised her to do in order to avoid becoming pregnant.
