The High Court (General Jurisdiction 1) has dismissed the GHS 15,000,000 defamation suit filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Sammy Gyamfi, declaring the writ incurably defective and incompetent.
The court ruled that the originating process was incapable of properly invoking its jurisdiction.
In delivering its verdict, the bench anchored its legal reasoning on key judicial precedents, citing Coleman v. Newmont regarding the applicable procedural rule, alongside Owusu Domena to emphasise the strict necessity of raising objections timeously.
With this ruling, the legal action has been effectively terminated, leaving no case remaining before the court.
Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin filed a GH¢15 million defamation lawsuit (Suit No. GT 1029/2026) against Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) CEO Sammy Gyamfi and Multimedia Group Limited in the Accra High Court.
The legal dispute arose after Afenyo-Markin raised concerns and demanded accountability regarding reported financial losses at the Ghana Gold Board.
In response, Gyamfi strongly disputed the claims during a live broadcast on JoyNews’ Newsfile, labeling the Minority Leader an “extortionist” and challenging him to take legal action.
Afenyo-Markin’s lawsuit prayed the court for damages, a full retraction, an apology, and a perpetual injunction against both parties.
But the court has set aside the plaintiff’s writ of summons and statement of claim filed on August 24, 2026, after ruling that the legal process failed to meet mandatory procedural requirements in a defamation action.
Delivering the judgment, the presiding judge underlined that under Order 57 Rule 2 of C.I. 47, a writ issued in a libel suit must be properly endorsed with sufficient particulars of the allegedly defamatory publication to ensure it is clearly identified.
The court stressed that this requirement is a specific procedural obligation governing defamation proceedings rather than a mere technicality.
Expanding on the decision, the court explained that specialised rules governing specific categories of legal actions must be strictly adhered to in order to properly invoke judicial jurisdiction.
In highlighting this principle, the judge pointed to Order 57 alongside other tailored provisions of C.I. 47 that govern commercial claims, moneylenders and mortgage actions, as well as insolvency proceedings.
The court maintained that general procedural provisions cannot automatically be relied upon to bypass or excuse non-compliance with rules crafted specifically for defamation cases.
Addressing legal precedents, the court evaluated previous Supreme Court rulings concerning the omission of defamatory particulars from a writ’s endorsement.
In Owusu Domena v Amoh, details provided in the statement of claim were accepted as curing the initial defect, largely because the defendant raised no objection and fully participated in the trial. However, the judge distinguished that case from the present matter, observing that lawyers for Mr Gyamfi entered a conditional appearance and swiftly filed a legal challenge against the writ.
Under these distinct circumstances, the judge rejected arguments that the particulars included in the statement of claim could remedy the flawed writ. The court further relied on the Supreme Court ruling in the consolidated cases involving Alex Onuma and others against Newmont, which reaffirmed the necessity of complying with Order 57 Rules 2 and 3(1) of C.I. 47.
Concluding the ruling, the judge agreed with the applicant that the absence of sufficient particulars rendered the process fundamentally defective, prompting the court to set aside both the writ of summons and the statement of claim, whilst ordering that no costs be awarded.
By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana
