High Court Throws Out Afenyo-Markin’s GH¢15M Defamation Suit Against Sammy Gyamfi.

An Accra High Court has thrown out a GH¢15 million defamation case brought by MP Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) director Samuel “Sammy” Gyamfi. The General Jurisdiction 1 presiding officer dismissed the matter on October 14, 2026, with costs, declaring that the originating writ of summons was “incurably defective and incompetent.”

The fiery rhetoric between the minority leader and Sammy has been running since August 2026 after Afenyo-Markin raised questions about the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP) which had lost $1.7 billion.

During an August 22, 2026, Newsfile programme on JoyNews, Sammy, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), accused Afenyo-Markin of extortion while questioning his figures.

Afenyo-Markin immediately responded the next day with a defamation suit seeking GH¢15 million in general damages, an unqualified public apology, retraction, and a permanent injunction against the statements. Multimedia Group Limited, publishers of Joy News, were named as defendants.

Ayine and Partners, Sammy’s lawyers, applied to set aside the proceedings before the court, entering into a conditional appearance. They argued that the first respondent (Afenyo-Markin)’s writ was not properly framed in accordance with the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).

The court was also asked to intervene in the manner in which the originating process was served on the first respondent despite the fact that Sammy had consented for his lawyers to accept service of court processes on his behalf to hasten proceedings.

Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers confirmed that service of process was completed and denied, in the strongest terms possible, the incessant media and social media speculation that their client was trying to evade the process.

“In the circumstances, and particularly in the context of the instant action, I believe that the decision in Owusu Domena v. Amoh is directly applicable and binding on this court,” read the judgment, partly.

“The defect in the writ was cured by the subsequent detailed statement of claim being filed and served as permitted by Order 57 rule 2 of C.I. 47.”

However, the High Court declined to follow the lead of the Supreme Court in the Owusu Domena case because the defendant there “had wholly waived any objection to the irregularity by virtue of his conduct in the proceedings.” Unlike Amoh, Gyamfi’s lawyers objected to the irregularity and took exception to the writ’s structure.

“The law is perfectly clear that in every libel action, the plaintiff is under a duty to particularise the alleged defamatory matter in the writ so that the court is in a position to identify it,” stated the judge.

“The requirement set out in order 57 rule 2 of the Rules is not directory but mandatory.

This court is also guided by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alex Onuma and others v. Newmont (Coleman v. Newmont) which explicitly states that in order to comply with order 57 rules 2 and 3(1) of the Rules, a plaintiff in a libel action must particularise the allegations of defamation in the writ.

It is important to note that this ruling only concerns the dismissal of Afenyo-Markin’s suit on the grounds of technical irregularity. The court declines to rule on the substantive issues raised by the plaintiff, including whether Sammy’s alleged remarks were indeed defamatory.

Therefore, the present proceedings in relation to this originating writ are terminated, with costs. However, it remains to be seen if Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers will amend the defective writ and resubmit the multi-million cedi suit to the court.