A man she claims to be her "sugar daddy" has been sued by a woman in Accra for allegedly breaking an agreement to care for her.
Deborah Seyram Adablah claims in a lawsuit that was filed at the Accra High Court on Monday, January 23, 2023, that her "sugar daddy" (name withheld) agreed to buy her a car, pay for her three years of housing, pay her a stipend of GH3,000 per month, marry her after he divorced his wife, and also give her a lump sum to start a business.
She asserts that despite the fact that the "sugar daddy" purchased the vehicle and registered it in his (sugar daddy's) name, he has returned it to her, denying her access to use it after approximately a year of enjoying the Honda Civic, which was valued at GH120,000, while he also paid for only a one-year housing arrangement.
Adablah has also accused the "sugar daddy" of exploitation, sexual harassment, abuse, and lowering her reputation, claiming that she was forced into the relationship while she was performing her national service.
Reliefs The plaintiff is requesting that the "sugar daddy" be ordered by the court to transfer the car's title into her name and return the vehicle to her.
In addition, she is requesting that the court order the defendant to pay her a one-time payment so that she can "start a business to take care of herself as agreed by the plaintiff and the defendant."
The court can also order the "sugar daddy" to pay the two years of unpaid accommodation that she and the defendant agreed upon.
Again, she wants the court to order the defendant to pay for her medical bills because the defendant told her to do something as a "side effect of a family planning treatment" so she wouldn't get pregnant.
a) A directive instructing the first defendant to transfer car No. GC-7899-21 into the plaintiff's name, or a directive to the DVLA to register the car number. GC-7899-21 in the Plaintiff's name as the owner.
b) The first defendant's promise to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of repairs, which totaled GH10,000.00, was not fulfilled.
c) A demand that the Plaintiff be compensated by the Defendants for the following:
(i) The plaintiff receives a lump sum from the first defendant to help her start a business and take care of herself, as agreed upon by the plaintiff and the first defendant.
(ii) First Defendant pays the remaining two years' rent for Plaintiff's housing or pays the same amount for an alternative housing option at the same rate.
(iii) From July 2022 until the date of the judgment, the first defendant is obligated to pay all medical costs incurred as a direct result of the side effects of the family planning treatment as well as any outstanding arrears of the plaintiff's monthly allowance.
(iv) The Defendants face general damages.
(d) Any other relief the Court deems appropriate, including legal fees The plaintiff claims that the first defendant promised to leave the bank and not enter into a contract in exchange for the plaintiff's agreement to do so. The first defendant also promised the plaintiff the following:
Working capital in one lump sum to start a business.
Buy plaintiff a ring, pay her GH3,000.00 a month, buy her a car, and cover her three-year rent and lodging costs. Also, buy plaintiff a ring. Cover her medical costs and other expenses, like paying for her to get a treatment for family planning so that she won't give birth immediately.
to marry Plaintiff after divorcing his wife during their casual relationship due to the fact that the first defendant's marriage to his wife was strained by irreconcilable differences and was beyond repair or reconciliation.
Statement of Claim The plaintiff is a woman without a job who lives in Labadi, Accra.
The first defendant is a director of finance who works at the head office of the second defendant's bank in Accra.
The second defendant is a bank and financial institution with a registered office in Accra that is governed by the laws of the Republic of Ghana. It is the employer of the first defendant and is also where the plaintiff worked as a National Service employee until she left the bank.
Plaintiff asserts that she worked as a National Service employee for the second defendant bank and that the first defendant was her superior as the second defendant bank's Chief Financial Officer (CFO).
The plaintiff asserts that as part of her national service, she was sent to the head office of the second defendant bank around October 10, 2020, where the first defendant held the position of chief finance officer (CFO) in charge of the finance department.
The plaintiff claims that she had a romantic relationship with the first defendant while she was serving in the national service. The plaintiff claims that the relationship began as a result of the first defendant's persistent sexual harassment and abuse of the plaintiff, a superior officer with a lot of power. The plaintiff eventually gave in, and without him, she would have had a difficult time working in the second defendant's office.
Plaintiff asserts that, when she first started working for the second defendant bank, she witnessed persistent sexual harassment of female employees by senior male officers, who threatened to terminate your employment if you did not comply with their demands. The plaintiff asserts that, to the knowledge of the managers of the second defendant bank, virtually every senior manager in the bank has a girlfriend. They also use female employees to make advances on extremely wealthy customers with the intention of sleeping with them and getting them to open bank accounts, which hurts female employees.
The plaintiff claims that she had no choice but to fall prey to the first defendant and enter into a Parlor relationship with the first defendant in light of the 15 defendants' persistent sexual harassment and abuse of the plaintiff. The second defendant, on the other hand, looked on and did nothing to stop it, but she encouraged it by her actions. The Plaintiff asserts that the Second Defendant, as her employer, owed her a duty of care that the Second Defendant failed to fulfill. Worse, the Second Defendant also coerced her into reaching out to male customers in order to lure them into opening accounts with the bank.
Plaintiff asserts that her Parlor relationship was open and known to the second defendant as well as nearly all bank employees. Not only was the second defendant aware that the plaintiff was involved in this sinister and unhealthy work relationship, but it was also the norm in the second defendant bank, and the second defendant watched without safeguarding the plaintiff or any of his or her female employees.
Plaintiff asserts that when she first started working for the bank as a member of the National Service, another female married woman employee was also subjected to harassment and eventually gave in. This was a well-kept secret among the employees, and no one can dispute it since you stand to lose your job with the second defendant bank.
Plaintiff asserts that no employee is willing to testify to this effect because they all fear losing their jobs. The plaintiff will fight this one battle in the hope that many female employees will be freed from their bonds.
The plaintiff asserts that, at all relevant times, the second defendant owed a duty of care to its employees, particularly female employees, who were continuously sexually harassed and abused in the workplace, with the second defendant watching and encouraging the behavior because all of the top executives were involved in these sex matches, including the plaintiff's own with the first defendant.
Under Ghana's Labour Act, the second defendant had responsibilities to her employees, and the rights of those employees were violated by the second defendant.
The plaintiff asserts that she was not the only individual hired to perform National Service during that time. Around the same time, she had other coworkers who were also doing National Service. The plaintiff asserts that the National Service personnel, particularly the plaintiff and her coworkers, were about to be hired by the bank as Contract Employees when the National Service was about to end.
Plaintiff claims that the 15 defendants, having abused his position as Chief Finance Officer (CFO), harassed Plaintiff into accepting a parlor relationship and were successful in persuading Plaintiff to agree to leave First Atlantic Bank, despite the fact that she and her colleagues had the opportunity to continue as Contract Staff so that they could continue the parlor relationship at an enticing consideration. Plaintiff claims that the defendants were able to convince Plaintiff to exit the bank, which is First Atlantic Bank.
The plaintiff received assurances from the first defendant that he would leave the bank and not enter into a contract, and in exchange, the first defendant promised to provide the plaintiff with the following:
Working capital in one lump sum to start a business.
Buy plaintiff a ring, pay her GH3,000.00 a month, buy her a car, and cover her three-year rent and lodging costs. Also, buy plaintiff a ring. Cover her medical costs and other expenses, like paying for her to get a treatment for family planning so that she won't give birth immediately.
to marry Plaintiff after divorcing his wife during their casual relationship due to the fact that the first defendant's marriage to his wife was strained by irreconcilable differences and was beyond repair or reconciliation.
Usually to look after the plaintiff.
Based on these representations, the plaintiff asserts that; She left after her National Service ended in July 2021 and did not even apply for the Contract position when her coworkers were working on it. Additionally, the plaintiff agreed to remain in a parlor relationship with the first defendant until they were married.
As stated in paragraphs 14 and 15, the plaintiff asserts that in addition to undertaking and agreeing to carry out her portion of the bargain, the defendant also agreed to carry out his portion.
The plaintiff asserts that, in accordance with the 15 defendant's representations and assurances, he provided the plaintiff with a two-bedroom apartment at a rental value of GH1,500 per month and paid the first-year rent, leaving a balance of H/No for the remaining two years. GL-010-0745 Labadi, Accra, which the plaintiff is still occupying at the time of this Writ's issuance and is scheduled for renewal. In fact, Plaintiff has been taken to rent control to be kicked out.
The plaintiff asserts that the first defendant also began providing the plaintiff with a monthly stipend, allowance, or salary of GH3,000 until July 2022, when the parties began having disagreements and the first defendant is currently in arrears of payment at the time this Writ was issued.
Additionally, the first defendant requested that the plaintiff look for a vehicle for herself so that he could pay for it. Therefore, Plaintiff contacted a car dealer and purchased a home-owned, unregistered Honda Civic. The first defendant paid for the car, registered it, and gave the keys to the plaintiff, who has been driving it for just over a year. The plaintiff bargained for it for GH120,000 and referred the dealer to the first defendant.
In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the first defendant installed a monitoring device, or tracking device, in the plaintiff's vehicle in order to ensure that he had complete control over her and monitor her wherever she went. Even if the defendant is out of the country, he can still monitor plaintiff from a distance and stop the vehicle at his whim.
The plaintiff asserts that, in support of the first defendant's sexual despite the fact that the parties were aware of the risk, which she brought to the attention of the first defendant, he engaged in sexual activity with her without the protection of the first defendant and subjected the plaintiff to a risky medical family planning treatment. As a result, the first defendant paid for the plaintiff's family planning treatment at the Marie Stopes Clinic Kokomlemle in Accra as well as her medical expenses whenever the family planning injection caused her to bleed too much.
When Plaintiff experienced similar excessive bleeding recently, she contacted the first defendant to pay for treatment, but he turned her down. Plaintiff has been experiencing complications and has sought treatment from specialists at 37 Military Hospital and Trust Hospital.
When the first defendant's wife called, the plaintiff had to pretend to be a secretary in the office called Emefa until very late at night on the instructions of the first defendant. This was done to show the plaintiff that his marriage had been challenged.
to the point where the wife contacted the Plaintiff to verify the account.
The plaintiff claims that she has recently begun having disagreements with the first defendant regarding how they should continue their relationship. 15 The plaintiff refused the defendant's request to have unnatural carnal knowledge of her.
This went on several times, and the differences between the parties kept getting worse.
The plaintiff asserts that the first defendant made a variety of similar requests that were contrary to societal norms. After that, the plaintiff and the first defendant met and decided to end their relationship.
One of these meetings took place at Brasa Restaurant, where the parties agreed that the Plaintiff would be compensated by the first defendant. Plaintiff requested that they record the understanding or agreements reached on audio or video after they reached their agreement at the meeting because she was concerned that either party might reject it in the future. Text messages between the plaintiff and the first defendant indicated that they understood, are available, and will be presented at the trial.
The plaintiff claims that one time, while the first defendant was out of the country and in Dubai, the first defendant used the tracking device to stop the car violently while the plaintiff was driving on the road, posing a life-threatening threat to the driver. When the plaintiff fixed the car and informed the first defendant, he instead went to the mechanic and sprayers and showed them documents of the car that listed him as the owner. The plaintiff had promised to fix the car or get reimbursed by the first defendant. The first defendant insisted on selecting the vehicle, but the sprayer, welder, and mechanic refused to let him in. The plaintiff asserts that the Welder received a total payment of GH10,000.00. Despite the plaintiff's repeated requests, they have yet to issue a receipt for the GH500.00 that was paid for the parts that the mechanic purchased and his work (GH6500), as well as the GH3,000.00 that was paid for the sprayer.
The plaintiff claims that she only realized at this point that the car was not in her name. Plaintiff claims she was surprised by this. Additionally, the plaintiff instructed the mechanics and sprayers to report the incident to the police, which they did. However, the first defendant has threatened them, and they will not want to be involved in this case.
The plaintiff asserts that she instructed her attorneys to confer with the first defendant's attorneys; however, the first defendant was prepared to transfer ownership of the car he purchased for the plaintiff to the plaintiff and to pay some of the plaintiff's medical expenses, but not all of them, leading to this action.
Plaintiff also went to Police Headquarters on her own to make a report to DOVVSU, but the police did not provide her with the necessary assistance.
After that, the plaintiff instructed her attorney to take up the brief, and the plaintiff's attorney wrote to the first defendant to try to settle the dispute amicably; however, the first defendant did not, refused to, or neglected to settle the matter.
The Plaintiff asserts that after the First Defendant received the notice from her attorney, the First Defendant went to a police station and filed a complaint of stealing the car. She was accompanied by the head of the security for the Second Defendant, who was called [...], and she led the police team to her house, where they forcedfully took the car and towed it to the Greater Accra Regional Police Station on a workday. The first defendant and the second defendant's representative, Daniel Afrifa, led the police to invade Plaintiff's residence, embarrassing her and keeping her in constant shock, lowering her reputation in front of the right-thinking members of her community, Labadi-Lamptey George. Plaintiff has photos and videos of them.
The fact that the first defendant had accused the plaintiff of stealing the vehicle that he had purchased for her during their relationship surprised the plaintiff. The police met both parties, including the head of the security for the second defendant, after reading the plaintiff's statement; who actively participated and, at one point, challenged the police officer, who condemned the defendants' and his officers' arrests. After listening to the parties, the police decided that the defendants had misled them into acting and gave the Plaintiff the car because they thought it wasn't theft.
The plaintiff claims that the defendants and the police made her feel bad at her home, that her neighbors looked at her, that the police assaulted the plaintiff, and that the incident was reported to the Labadi Police Station. All of these things were done in bad faith by the defendants, and they caused the police to maliciously take steps to arrest and prosecute her for a crime they knew she didn't commit.
Plaintiff has since experienced a shock, and the treatment she received has affected her for some time and continues to haunt her throughout her life, with blame heaped on her for the defendants' malicious behavior.
Plaintiff asserts that the police gave her car back to her days later. The plaintiff's lawyer received a response from the lawyer for the first defendant, which denied the claims.
The plaintiff asserts that the actions of the defendants have abused, mistreated, exploited, deceived, disappointed, failed, and insulted her. According to Plaintiff's Statement to the Police, the first defendant also repeatedly threatened Plaintiff verbally and by sending her threatening text messages that put her life in danger.
The Plaintiff has been harmed as a result of the Defendants' actions, and the First Defendant has failed to carry out their agreements, promises, and/or agreements. Unless the First Defendant is forced to honor his part of the bargain by this Honorable Court, he will continue to refuse permanently.
Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts the following claims against the defendants jointly and severally:
a) A directive instructing the first defendant to transfer car No. GC-7899-21 into the plaintiff's name, or a directive to the DVLA to register the car number. GC-7899-21 in the Plaintiff's name as the owner.
b) The first defendant's promise to reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of repairs, which totaled GH10,000.00, was not fulfilled.
c) A demand that the Plaintiff be compensated by the Defendants for the following:
(i) The plaintiff receives a lump sum from the first defendant to help her start a business and take care of herself, as agreed upon by the plaintiff and the first defendant.
(ii) First Defendant pays the remaining two years' rent for Plaintiff's housing or pays the same amount for an alternative housing option at the same rate.
(iii) From July 2022 until the date of the judgment, the first defendant is obligated to pay all medical costs incurred as a direct result of the side effects of the family planning treatment as well as any outstanding arrears of the plaintiff's monthly allowance.
(iv) The Defendants face general damages.
(d) Any other relief the court deems necessary, such as reimbursement for legal fees
