Court dismisses Afenyo-Markin’s GH¢15m defamation suit against Sammy Gyamfi
The High Court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi over comments alleged to be defamatory.
In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, the court held that the failure to include sufficient details of the alleged defamatory publication in the writ of summons, as required under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), rendered the action defective.
The court subsequently set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim filed on August 24, 2026. It made no order as to costs.
The lawsuit followed alleged defamatory remarks by Mr Gyamfi, including the description of Mr Afenyo-Markin as an “extortionist”. The Minority Leader had sought GH¢15 million in damages.
Objection
In its ruling, the court examined whether the details of the alleged defamatory publication contained in the statement of claim could remedy the omission in the writ of summons.
It considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Owusu-Domena v Amoah, which established that particulars in a statement of claim could correct a defective endorsement on a writ where the defendant had not raised an objection and had fully participated in the proceedings.
However, the court distinguished that case from the present one, noting that the defendant had entered a conditional appearance at the beginning of the proceedings and promptly filed an application challenging the writ.
The court, therefore, rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the particulars in the statement of claim could remedy the defect.
Legal provisions
The court emphasised that actions subject to specific procedural requirements must comply with the relevant rules, explaining that general procedural provisions cannot automatically override special requirements.
It relied on Order 57 of C.I. 47, which governs defamation cases, and referred to a Supreme Court ruling in consolidated cases involving Alex Onuma and others against Newmont.
Under Order 57, Rule 2, a writ in a libel action must contain sufficient particulars of the allegation to identify the publication being challenged.
Rule 3(1) further requires a plaintiff who claims that words were used in a defamatory sense beyond their ordinary meaning to provide details of the facts and circumstances supporting that interpretation.
The court concluded that the failure to sufficiently identify the alleged defamatory publication in the writ of summons made the action defective.
Amendment
The court also declined to consider an amended process filed during the proceedings.
Citing the case of Ahin Akwa II v Okai Jah III, it held that an amendment could not be pursued or granted to defeat an objection to a process that was already before the court.
Consequently, the court set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim filed on August 24, 2026, without awarding costs to either party.
About The Author
