Afenyo-Markin: Sammy Gyamfi Defamation Suit Continuation Confirmed

• Alexander Afenyo-Markin's lawyers plan to continue his GH¢15 million defamation suit against Sammy Gyamfi despite a recent High Court setback.
• The High Court, presided over by Justice Akwasi Adjenim Boateng, set aside the case on procedural grounds, citing insufficient specificity in the writ.
• The court's ruling did not address the substantive issue of whether Mr. Gyamfi's comments were defamatory, focusing instead on High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).
• Afenyo-Markin's legal team, Dehyena Chambers, is awaiting the full judgment delivered on October 14, 2026, to determine their next steps.
• A dispute over service of process arose after Mr. Gyamfi's former lawyers, Ayine & Partners, initially agreed to accept service but later returned the documents.

Despite a recent High Court decision to set aside the case on procedural grounds, legal representatives for Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin have affirmed their intention to vigorously pursue his GH¢15 million defamation claim against Ghana Gold Board Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi.

Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin is pressing forward with his GH¢15 million defamation lawsuit against Sammy Gyamfi, the Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board. This decision comes despite a recent ruling by the High Court that set aside the initial case. The legal action stems from remarks allegedly made by Mr. Gyamfi concerning Mr. Afenyo-Markin during an August 2026 broadcast of the JoyNews Newsfile programme, for which the Minority Leader is seeking substantial damages.

Lawyers representing Mr. Afenyo-Markin have publicly stated their commitment to seeing the matter through to its conclusion. In a statement released by Dehyena Chambers, the legal team confirmed they are acting under their client's explicit instructions to continue the pursuit of the claim. They are currently awaiting the comprehensive judgment, which was delivered on October 14, 2026, to determine their subsequent legal strategy. As of 4:00 p.m. on the Wednesday following the ruling, a copy of this crucial document had not yet been made available to them by the court registry.

The High Court's decision to set aside the defamation suit, presided over by Justice Akwasi Adjenim Boateng, was based purely on procedural grounds. The court determined that the initial writ filed by Mr. Afenyo-Markin's legal team did not adequately specify the exact statements alleged to be defamatory. This deficiency meant the writ failed to comply with the stringent requirements outlined in the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). Crucially, this ruling did not delve into the substantive merits of the case, meaning it did not assess whether Mr. Gyamfi’s comments were, in fact, defamatory.

Adding another layer of complexity to the proceedings, Mr. Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers have accused Mr. Gyamfi of relying on these procedural technicalities rather than submitting a substantive defense to the allegations. They highlighted a specific instance where Mr. Gyamfi’s former legal representatives, Ayine & Partners, had formally informed the court on August 26, 2026, of their authorization to accept service of the writ on his behalf. However, these documents were subsequently returned to the court registry by Ayine & Partners, who indicated that their client had changed his mind regarding their representation for this specific purpose. A subsequent attempt to personally serve Mr. Gyamfi at his office reportedly proved unsuccessful. Mr. Afenyo-Markin’s legal team contends that, under the established rules of court, service is considered complete once a lawyer provides a written undertaking to accept court documents on behalf of a client.

Despite the procedural dismissal, the legal team from Dehyena Chambers remains resolute in their commitment to pursuing the GH¢15 million defamation suit against Sammy Gyamfi. Their public declaration underscores a determination to navigate the legal process until a definitive resolution is reached. The current phase involves a careful review of the full judgment, which is expected to provide detailed reasoning for the court's decision to set aside the initial writ.

This ongoing legal battle highlights the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural rules, particularly in high-stakes defamation cases. The dispute over the proper service of court documents and the initial writ's specificity under C.I. 47 are central to the current impasse. The outcome of Mr. Afenyo-Markin's lawyers' next steps, following their review of the judgment, will be closely watched as they aim to re-establish the substantive merits of their client's claim for damages.

Lawyers should note the strict pleading requirements for defamation claims under Ghana's High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) to avoid procedural dismissal. This case also highlights considerations around the finality and implications of a lawyer's undertaking to accept service of court documents.

Source: Reporting based on recent legal disclosures.