Why The Court Thrown Out The Sidechick Case

The law is settled that any agreement which has as its object future to illicit sexual relations is bad, as it is a contract to promote sexual immorality. 

Hence a promise to pay monthly allowance to a mistress, that is GH¢3,000.00 monthly allowance to the respondent in this case, even if made by deed under seal, would be void.

So also a contract which though seemingly innocent, has, to the knowledge of the parties, an immoral motive would also be void.

The above are some of the reasons the High Court in Accra on Tuesday (Nov 28, 2023) dismissed the case filed by Deborah Seyram Adablah against Ernest Kwasi Nimako.

The High Court in Accra, presided over by Justice John Bosco Nabarese held that although the relationship between the two was immoral and was not in conformity to acceptance of society, there was no reasonable cause of action arising from the writ filed by Deborah Seyram Adablah.

The court therefore dismissed the case.

Deborah Seyram Adablah, the young woman, sued the former Chief Finance officer of a bank claiming sexual harassment. 

In the ruling Tuesday (Nov 28) the Court explained that “The accommodation or the rent for 2 years for the respondent, the purchase of a car for the Respondent, to pay the respondent a monthly allowance and other things that were allegedly promised the Respondent, were done for the purpose of enabling her to receive the visits of the Applicant whose mistress she was and to commit fornication with him.

“Indeed, I do not think that it makes any difference whether the Respondent is a commercial sex worker or a common prostitute or whether she is merely the mistress of one man. The accommodation that is allegedly being promised or its rent payment to be provided for 2 years by the Applicant, is for the purpose of committing the sin of fornication and such is immoral.”

“I am therefore of the view that whatever the Respondent sought to benefit was her participation in an illegal and immoral act with the Applicant by being in a parlor relationship for financial consideration or gains, a relationship, the act of which was not, according to the Respondent herself, in conformity with societal norms. There is nothing, absolutely nothing glaring on the face of the pleadings that the Respondent has been able to point a single act performed outside the provision of sexual services or acts incidental thereto which included her duties in her parlor relationship with the Applicant.

“Therefore, the case comes within the rule that out of a forbidden or immoral act no cause of action can arise. In the result, I wil uphold the submission by Counsel for the Applicant. The application to strike out the Respondent’s pleadings and dismiss the action is hereby granted,” the court added.