VIDEO: Sammy Gyamfi’s Lawyer Explains Why Afenyo-Markin’s GH¢15m Suit Was Dismissed
Lawyers for Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi have explained the legal grounds on which a High Court dismissed a GH¢15 million defamation suit filed against him by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin.
The court’s decision, delivered on October 14, 2026, followed a challenge by Gyamfi’s legal team over the validity of the writ of summons filed by the New Patriotic Party (NPP) legislator.
According to the legal team at Ayine & Partners, the writ did not satisfy specific procedural requirements governing defamation actions under Order 57 Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).
The lawyers argued that the document lacked sufficient particulars identifying the publication alleged to have defamed Afenyo-Markin. They maintained that the omission constituted a procedural defect that affected the validity of the action.
The court reportedly agreed that the writ did not comply with the applicable requirements. It further held that the defect could not be cured by relying on information contained in the statement of claim, particularly because Gyamfi’s lawyers had promptly challenged the validity of the writ.
Following the ruling, the court set aside the writ of summons and the statement of claim. It also made no order as to costs.
The case arose from a public dispute involving Afenyo-Markin and Gyamfi, who has been at the centre of several public discussions in his capacity as head of GoldBod. The disagreement included allegations of extortion and comments concerning the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme.
Afenyo-Markin subsequently sought GH¢15 million in damages through the defamation action, arguing that statements associated with the dispute had harmed his reputation.
Gyamfi’s legal team challenged the proceedings on procedural grounds rather than allowing the matter to proceed directly to a determination of the substantive allegations.
The distinction is important because the dismissal was based on defects in the court documents. It should not be interpreted as a judicial finding that the statements at the centre of the dispute were either defamatory or truthful.
Similarly, the ruling does not, by itself, establish the merits of the competing claims made during the public disagreement. The court’s decision addressed whether the action had been properly instituted under the applicable procedural rules.
The case highlights the importance of complying with procedural requirements when initiating defamation proceedings. Such rules help ensure that parties are properly informed of the claims against them and that cases are brought before the court in the required form.
The dismissal represents a procedural outcome in the dispute between the two public figures. Any further legal steps would depend on the decisions of the parties and the applicable court procedures.
Source: Thepressradio.com
