Ghana High Court Sets Aside Afenyo-Markin Defamation Writ

• The High Court in Accra set aside a GH¢15 million defamation suit filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Sammy Gyamfi on October 14, 2026.
• Justice Akwasi Agyenim Boateng ruled that the defamation writ was defective for failing to sufficiently particularize the alleged defamatory statements.
• This decision was based on the requirements of Order 57, Rule 2 of Ghana's High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).
• Afenyo-Markin's lawyers accused Gyamfi of using procedural tactics to avoid responding and vowed to pursue the case to its conclusion.
• The ruling highlights the critical need for meticulous particularization in defamation suits to avoid procedural dismissal.

This ruling underscores the critical importance for lawyers drafting defamation suits in Ghana to meticulously particularize every alleged defamatory statement in the writ, as failure to strictly adhere to Order 57, Rule 2 of C.I. 47 can result in the writ being set aside, causing significant delays and requiring re-filing.

Alexander Afenyo-Markin, the Minority Leader, initiated a GH¢15 million defamation suit against Sammy Gyamfi, the Chief Executive Officer of Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), following comments made by Gyamfi in August 2026. Gyamfi had publicly labeled Afenyo-Markin an "extortionist" during a discussion on JoyNews’ Newsfile program, which centered on the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme. Afenyo-Markin's legal action sought not only monetary damages but also a retraction of the statements, a public apology, and a permanent injunction to prevent any further publication of the alleged defamatory remarks. Multimedia Group Limited, the parent company of JoyNews, was also named as a defendant in the suit.

However, the High Court in Accra, on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, set aside the defamation writ, a significant procedural setback for Afenyo-Markin's legal team. The court's decision hinged on the finding that the writ of summons failed to adequately specify the particular statements alleged to be defamatory. This ruling, delivered by Justice Akwasi Agyenim Boateng, addressed only the procedural deficiencies of the filing and did not delve into the substantive question of whether Gyamfi's comments were, in fact, defamatory.

Lawyers representing Afenyo-Markin expressed strong disapproval of the court's decision, suggesting that procedural technicalities should not impede the pursuit of substantive justice. They further accused Sammy Gyamfi of employing "procedural roadblocks" to evade a direct response to the defamation allegations. Despite the setback, Afenyo-Markin's legal representatives affirmed their client's resolve to pursue the GH¢15 million defamation suit to its ultimate conclusion, indicating that they would determine their next steps after a thorough review of the court's full ruling, which they had not yet received as of 4:00 p.m. on the day of the judgment.

The High Court's decision to set aside the Afenyo-Markin defamation writ in Ghana was rooted in specific requirements outlined in the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). Specifically, Order 57, Rule 2 mandates that a defamation writ must sufficiently particularize the statements alleged to be defamatory. The court, presided over by Justice Akwasi Agyenim Boateng, found that the initial filing by Afenyo-Markin's lawyers did not meet these stringent particularization requirements, rendering the writ defective. This ruling underscores the critical importance for lawyers drafting defamation suits in Ghana to meticulously particularize every alleged defamatory statement in the writ, as failure to strictly adhere to Order 57, Rule 2 of C.I. 47 can result in the writ being set aside, causing significant delays and requiring re-filing.

Further complicating the matter were issues surrounding the service of the writ. Afenyo-Markin's legal team detailed attempts to serve Sammy Gyamfi with the court documents. On August 26, Gyamfi's legal representatives, Ayine & Partners, formally confirmed their authorization to accept service on his behalf. Subsequently, a court bailiff delivered the documents to the law firm. However, the very next day, Gyamfi's lawyers returned the documents to the court registry, citing a change of mind by their client.

A subsequent attempt to personally serve Gyamfi at his office proved unsuccessful, with allegations that the GoldBod CEO refused to accept the documents. Afenyo-Markin's lawyers contended that, under C.I. 47, service should be considered complete once a lawyer has provided written undertaking to accept court documents for a client. Despite these arguments, the court's ultimate decision to set aside the writ focused squarely on the lack of particularization, rather than the procedural issues related to service, highlighting the primacy of the content requirements for the defamation writ itself.

The ruling in the Sammy Gyamfi defamation suit carries significant implications for legal practice in Ghana, particularly concerning civil procedure and the handling of defamation cases. It serves as a stark reminder to legal practitioners about the absolute necessity of precision and thoroughness when drafting court documents, especially in actions alleging defamation. The requirement for detailed particularization is not a mere formality but a fundamental safeguard to ensure that defendants are fully aware of the specific allegations against them, enabling them to prepare an adequate defense.

This judicial emphasis on strict adherence to procedural rules, such as the particularization requirements under C.I. 47, Order 57, Rule 2, means that even meritorious claims can face premature dismissal if the initial filing is procedurally flawed. For Afenyo-Markin's legal team, this development necessitates a re-evaluation of their strategy and likely a re-filing of the suit with the necessary amendments, leading to delays in the progression of the GH¢15 million claim. The case thus illustrates how procedural missteps can create substantial hurdles, potentially prolonging legal battles and increasing costs for all parties involved.

The dispute also brings into focus the broader tension between procedural regularity and the pursuit of substantive justice. While Afenyo-Markin's lawyers argue that technicalities should not undermine the core merits of a case, the court's stance reinforces the principle that proper procedure is integral to the administration of justice. This outcome will undoubtedly influence how future defamation suits are prepared and litigated across Ghana, reinforcing the need for meticulous attention to detail from the outset to avoid similar procedural pitfalls.

This ruling highlights the critical importance for lawyers drafting defamation suits in Ghana to meticulously particularize every alleged defamatory statement in the writ, as failure to strictly adhere to Order 57, Rule 2 of C.I. 47 can result in the writ being set aside, causing significant delays and requiring re-filing.

Source: Original reporting on a High Court ruling in Ghana.