The High Court in Accra has struck out the GH¢15 million defamation suit filed by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi, holding that the writ of summons was incurably defective for failing to comply with mandatory procedural requirements governing libel actions.
The court, sitting as General Jurisdiction 1, set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim filed on August 24, 2026, after finding that the originating process did not contain sufficient particulars of the allegedly defamatory publication as required under Order 57 Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).
The decision brings the proceedings under the defective writ to an end without determining whether the statements complained of were defamatory or whether the allegations against Mr Afenyo-Markin were true or false.
Failure to comply with defamation procedure
The dispute arose from public exchanges between Mr Afenyo-Markin and Mr Gyamfi over alleged losses of US$1.7 billion associated with the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025.
Mr Afenyo-Markin had raised concerns about the reported losses, prompting a response from the GoldBod CEO, who accused the Minority Leader of attempted extortion.
Mr Afenyo-Markin subsequently announced in Parliament on August 24, 2026, that he had commenced legal proceedings against Mr Gyamfi and Multimedia Group Limited over statements he considered false and damaging to his reputation.
In the suit, the Minority Leader sought GH¢15 million in connection with the alleged defamatory remarks. The action also named Multimedia Group Limited as a defendant over the publication of the statements.
However, Mr Gyamfi’s lawyers entered a conditional appearance and applied to set aside the writ, arguing that it failed to satisfy the specific procedural requirements applicable to defamation proceedings.
The court agreed that the writ was defective because it did not sufficiently identify the publication complained of, as required by Order 57 Rule 2 of C.I. 47.
The judge treated the requirement as a substantive procedural obligation rather than a mere technicality that could automatically be overlooked by relying on the general provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Why the defect could not be cured
A central issue in the proceedings was whether particulars contained in the statement of claim could cure the omission in the writ of summons.
The court considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Owusu-Domena v Amoh, in which particulars contained in the statement of claim were treated as curing a defect in the writ in circumstances where the defendant had not objected and had participated fully in the proceedings.
The judge distinguished that situation from the present case, noting that Mr Gyamfi’s lawyers had entered a conditional appearance and promptly challenged the validity of the originating process.
The court was therefore unwilling to accept that the particulars in the statement of claim cured the defect in the writ under the circumstances before it.
The court also drew on the Supreme Court’s decision in consolidated cases involving Alex Onuma and others against Newmont, which emphasised the need for strict compliance with Order 57 Rules 2 and 3(1) of C.I. 47 in defamation proceedings.
The court held that the failure to endorse the writ with sufficient particulars rendered the process defective and set aside both the writ and the statement of claim. It made no order as to costs.
A procedural decision, not a determination of defamation
The ruling does not amount to a judicial finding that Mr Gyamfi’s statements were true, nor does it establish that Mr Afenyo-Markin was not defamed.
Rather, the court’s decision turned on whether the action had been commenced in accordance with the procedural rules governing libel claims.
This distinction is important because a court must first be properly seized of a matter before it can proceed to determine the substantive rights and liabilities of the parties.
In this case, the court concluded that the defective writ could not properly invoke its jurisdiction in the circumstances presented.
The decision consequently leaves the underlying dispute over the alleged defamatory statements unresolved by this ruling.
For the parties, the immediate outcome is that the proceedings commenced under the writ filed on August 24, 2026, have been brought to an end, with the court making no order as to costs.
