play videoVim Lady, Ernest Nimako and Seyram Adablah
Controversial media personality, Afia Pokua popularly known as Vim Lady has descended on side chick, Deborah Seyram Adablah after the Accra High Court threw out her case against Ernest Kwasi Nimako.
She explained that although Seyram Adablah’s claims are valid, the constitution of the country considers her affair with Kwasi Nimako as a breach of public
Vim Lady slammed Seyram Adablah for having an affair with a married man, adding that relying on oral promises to compel the court to grant her wishes is a step in the wrong direction.
“I have read the court judgement and it simply states that Seyram’s case is against the country’s public policy. This is because having an affair with someone you’re not married to is considered immoral and unacceptable. So, if you’ve had an affair with someone and the person couldn’t fulfil the promises, it will be difficult for the court to intervene," she said while speaking on Okay FM and monitored by GhanaWeb.
Vim Lady continued: "It is like having an affair with a prostitute and she sues you for owing her. Because it is illegal and breaches public policy, it will be difficult for the court to grant your request. Seyram’s case is a valid one because the man promised her but she is relying on a verbal promise."
Background
An Accra High Court on Tuesday, November 28, 2023, threw out a court suit initiated by Deborah Seyram Adablah against Ernest Kwasi Nimako, whom she refers to as her “sugar daddy”.
The court, in striking out the case, agreed with lawyers for Ernest Kwasi Nimako that the case lacked merit.
The lawyers for Kwasi Nimako, from 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 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.
Deborah Seyram Adablah had told the court Kwasi Nimako 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 wanted 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.
