Court strikes out Afenyo-Markin’s defamation suit as incompetent

Sammy Gyamfi and Alexander Afenyo-Markin

Sammy Gyamfi and Alexander Afenyo-Markin

The High Court has struck out Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s defamation suit against Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) CEO Sammy Gyamfi over a defective writ of summons.

The court ruled that the writ failed to comply with Order 57 Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), which requires sufficient particulars of the allegedly defamatory publication to be included in the writ.

The legal action followed a public dispute over alleged US$1.7 billion losses associated with the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025. Afenyo-Markin raised concerns about the reported losses, while Gyamfi disputed his claims and later accused him of attempted extortion.

Afenyo-Markin subsequently sued for defamation.

Lawyers for Sammy Gyamfi entered a conditional appearance and applied to set aside the writ, arguing that it did not satisfy the procedural requirements for libel actions.

In its ruling, the court emphasised that the requirement to identify the allegedly defamatory publication was a specific procedural obligation, not a mere technicality. It held that general provisions of C.I. 47 could not be used to excuse non-compliance with rules specifically governing defamation proceedings.

The judge considered previous Supreme Court decisions, including Owusu Domena v Amoh, in which particulars in a statement of claim were accepted as curing a defect in a writ. However, the court distinguished that case because the defendant had not objected and had participated fully in the proceedings.

In the present case, Gyamfi’s lawyers promptly challenged the writ after entering a conditional appearance. The court therefore rejected the argument that the statement of claim could cure the procedural defect.

The judge also referred to consolidated Supreme Court cases involving Alex Onuma and others against Newmont, which highlighted the importance of compliance with Order 57 Rules 2 and 3(1) of C.I. 47.

The court subsequently set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim filed on August 24, 2026. No order was made as to costs.