Here is the legal drama as the High Court rejects Seyram’s case, delving into promises, disputes, and the intersection of morality and law

In a surprising turn of events, the High Court in Accra has dismissed the case brought forward by Deborah Seyram Adablah against her alleged “sugar daddy,” Ernest Kwasi Nimako. The ruling, delivered by Justice John Bosco Nabarese on Nov 28, 2023, highlighted the immorality of their relationship while stating there was no reasonable cause of action in the plaintiff’s writ.

The Court’s Perspective on Immorality and Acceptance

Justice Nabarese, in his ruling, emphasized that although the relationship between Adablah and Nimako was deemed immoral and diverged from societal norms, the court couldn’t intervene in matters of personal morality. He added a poignant remark: “You cannot recover the price of something you have committed into an immoral act.”

The court’s decision rested on the principle that legal recourse should not be extended to actions rooted in immorality, marking a distinctive stand on the blurred line between personal choices and legal obligations.

Imposition of GH¢10,000 Cost on the Plaintiff

Notably, the plaintiff, Deborah Seyram Adablah, was not only denied legal redress but was also slapped with a cost of GH¢10,000. This financial penalty serves as a stern message from the court, discouraging frivolous lawsuits and emphasizing the responsibility of individuals in navigating their personal relationships.

Application to Strike the Case: Nimako’s Strategic Move

Preceding the court’s ruling, Nimako strategically filed an application urging the court to strike Adablah’s case. This legal maneuver sought to eliminate the case before it could proceed to trial. The court’s response to this application played a crucial role in shaping the outcome of the entire legal saga.

Deborah Seyram Adablah’s Grievances

The crux of Adablah’s case lay in a series of promises made by Nimako, whom she referred to as her “sugar daddy.” These promises ranged from material possessions like a car to financial support and a commitment to marriage. However, Adablah claimed that Nimako reneged on these promises, leading to her pursuit of legal action.

Unfulfilled Promises and Disputed Ownership

Among the allegations were Nimako taking back a car initially registered in his name, unfulfilled promises of three years’ accommodation, and financial support discrepancies. Adablah’s plea to the court included demands for the transfer of the car’s title, its return, the promised lump sum for a business venture, outstanding accommodation payments, and compensation for medical expenses resulting from a family planning treatment advised by Nimako.

Court’s Orders Sought by the Plaintiff

Adablah’s legal recourse aimed at obtaining specific orders from the court, each addressing a different aspect of her grievances. These orders included the transfer of the car’s title, the return of the car, a lump sum for business initiation, payment of outstanding accommodation fees, and compensation for medical expenses arising from a family planning treatment.

Analysis of the Court’s Decision

The court’s decision carries significant implications for legal perspectives on contractual agreements within unconventional relationships. It prompts a discussion on the delicate balance between morality and the pursuit of justice through legal means. The ruling underscores the importance of clear boundaries and agreements even in unconventional relationships.

Public Reaction and Discourse

Unsurprisingly, the court’s decision sparked a wave of reactions on social media. The public’s response reflected a mix of opinions on the morality of the relationship and the court’s intervention. The case became a focal point for discussions on justice, morality, and the role of the legal system in personal matters.

Lessons Learned

The case offers valuable lessons for individuals navigating unconventional relationships. It underscores the need for a clear understanding of the legal implications of personal agreements, even in relationships that may be considered outside societal norms. The importance of open communication and transparency is highlighted to avoid legal entanglements.


In conclusion, the dismissal of Deborah Seyram Adablah’s case against her “sugar daddy” raises pertinent questions about the intersection of morality and legal recourse. The court’s decision, while asserting its limitations in matters of personal morality, also emphasizes the responsibility of individuals in defining and navigating their relationships.