The High Court in Ghana has struck out a defamation lawsuit filed by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi, ruling that the writ of summons failed to meet the mandatory procedural requirements for libel cases.
The court’s decision followed a legal application by Sammy Gyamfi’s lawyers, who challenged the validity of the writ on the grounds that it did not comply with the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).
The legal dispute arose from public exchanges between Afenyo-Markin and Gyamfi over allegations of US$1.7 billion in losses linked to the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025.
Afenyo-Markin had raised concerns about the reported financial losses, while Gyamfi disputed the Minority Leader’s claims and subsequently accused him of attempted extortion. Following the allegations, Afenyo-Markin initiated defamation proceedings against the GoldBod CEO.
Sammy Gyamfi’s Lawyers Challenge Afenyo-Markin’s Lawsuit
In response to the lawsuit, lawyers representing Sammy Gyamfi entered a conditional appearance and filed an application seeking to set aside the writ of summons.
They argued that the legal document was defective because it failed to include sufficient particulars of the allegedly defamatory publication, as required under Ghana’s civil procedure rules.
In its ruling, the High Court agreed with the applicant, emphasising that Order 57 Rule 2 of C.I. 47 requires a writ in a libel action to contain enough details of the alleged defamatory statement or publication to identify the subject of the complaint.
The judge explained that this requirement was not merely a technical formality but a mandatory procedural obligation that must be satisfied when initiating defamation proceedings.
According to the court, compliance with the specific rules governing particular categories of legal actions is essential to properly invoke the court’s jurisdiction.
Court Explains Legal Requirements for Defamation Cases
The judge noted that Order 57 of C.I. 47 specifically regulates defamation proceedings, just as other provisions of the rules govern specialised legal matters, including commercial claims, moneylending transactions, mortgage actions and insolvency proceedings.
The court held that the general provisions of the civil procedure rules could not automatically excuse a failure to comply with specific requirements applicable to libel and defamation lawsuits.
In reaching its decision, the judge also considered previous Supreme Court rulings addressing situations in which litigants failed to include the necessary particulars of allegedly defamatory publications in their writs of summons.
One of the cases considered was Owusu Domena v Amoh, in which particulars contained in a statement of claim were treated as sufficient to cure a defect in the writ. That decision was influenced by the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the defendant had not objected to the defect and had participated fully in the proceedings.
However, the judge distinguished that precedent from the dispute involving Afenyo-Markin and Sammy Gyamfi.
The court observed that Gyamfi’s lawyers had entered a conditional appearance and promptly challenged the validity of the writ. Consequently, the judge found insufficient grounds to accept the argument that the particulars contained in the statement of claim could remedy the defect.
Supreme Court Precedent Influences High Court Ruling
The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in consolidated cases involving Alex Onuma and others against Newmont, which highlighted the importance of complying with Order 57 Rules 2 and 3(1) of C.I. 47 in defamation proceedings.
After reviewing the applicable legal provisions and judicial authorities, the judge concluded that the failure to endorse the writ with sufficient particulars of the allegedly defamatory publication rendered the legal process defective.
The court therefore set aside both the writ of summons and the statement of claim filed by Afenyo-Markin on August 24, 2026.
The judge further ordered that there would be no order as to costs, meaning neither party was awarded legal costs by the court in connection with the application.
What the Court’s Decision Means for the Afenyo-Markin and Sammy Gyamfi Dispute
The ruling centres on compliance with legal procedures for filing defamation cases rather than a determination of the truth or falsity of the disputed allegations.
The court’s decision underscores the importance of meeting mandatory procedural requirements when bringing libel and defamation claims before Ghanaian courts.
The case has attracted public attention because of the political positions of the parties involved and the controversy surrounding the reported US$1.7 billion losses associated with the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme.
Source: newsthemegh.com