A judge from the High Court who heard the case between Deborah Seyram Adablah and Ernest Nimako explained why he made the decision he did. He said that no court will back or enforce “unholy immorality.”
The judge, John Bosco Nabarese, said in a detailed decision that any agreement related to an “illicit sexual relationship” is not valid and cannot be enforced in court because it encourages sexual immorality.
“The law is clear: any agreement that leads to future sexual acts that aren’t legal is bad because it encourages sexual immorality.” So, even if the promise was made in a deed under seal, it would not be valid to say that the respondent would pay a mistress GH$ 3,000.00 every month. Also, a contract that seems good on the surface but is really motivated by something bad would not be valid if both sides knew about it.
The judge said he agreed with the lawyers for Mr. Nimako, Ama Opoku Amponsah Esq., Jeffery Koranteng Esq., and Charles Quansah Esq., who asked the court to throw out Seyram Adablah because she was asking for permission to do something that seemed wrong.
Don’t sign the prostitution deal.
Lawyer Ama Opoku Amponsah used the Latin proverb “ex turpi causa non oritur actio” to persuade the court: “No cause of action can arise from an illegal or immoral act.” He also used relevant cases and laws to back up his points.
The lawyers for Nimako begged the court not to “endorse” an agreement that “goes against public policy and is generally seen as illegal or encouraging immorality.”
Deborah Seyram Adablah, Nimako’s lawyer, told the court that her client wanted “to force the Court into enforcing a pure contract, similar to a commercial sex contract that goes against the norms, values, and public policy.”
Against the firing
It was not agreed upon by the lawyer for Deborah Seyram Adablah that Ernest Nimako’s move to have the whole case thrown out because it was immoral and didn’t show a good reason to sue should be granted.
Seyram Adablah’s lawyer says the application to dismiss is procedurally wrong, incompetent, and flawed because it doesn’t say which paragraph or paragraphs of Seyram’s pleadings they are attacking and want to be thrown out because they don’t show a good reason to sue or defend themselves.
The judge says, “I can’t bless prostitution, no matter how much it’s praised.”
Justice John Bosco ruled that the lawyer for Nimako was right when he said that Deborah Seyram Adablah was asking the court to approve of her “immoral, unhealthy, and unholy” sexual relationship with a married man.
The judge agreed with Counsel Opoku Ampomah Esq. that if the court ruled in favor of Seyram Adablah, it would “promote lasciviousness and engender the denigration of the institution of marriage,” which the court could not stand for.
The judge said, “In fact, I don’t think it matters whether the respondent (Deborah Seyram Adablah) is a commercial sex worker, a regular prostitute, or just the mistress of one man.” The applicant reportedly promised to rent an apartment for two years, but the purpose of that accommodation is to commit the sin of fornication, which is against the law, against public policy, and morally wrong.
According to Seyram Adablah, she was in a “parlor relationship for financial consideration or gains” with Ernest Nimako so she could “benefit from her participation in an illegal and immoral act.” Seyram Adablah herself said that this relationship “was not in conformity with societal norms.”
The judge said, “There is absolutely nothing glaring on the face of the pleadings to show” that Deborah Seyram Adablah “performed anything else outside the provision of sexual services or acts incidental thereto, which included her duties in her parlor relationship.” “Due to this, the case falls under the rule that no cause of action can come from an illegal or immoral act.”