An Accra High Court has dismissed the defamation suit filed by Minority Leader, Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin, against the Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Samuel Adu Gyamfi.
The court, in a ruling delivered on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, held that the writ of summons was defective.
It said the failure to endorse the writ with sufficient particulars of the alleged defamatory publication, as required by the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), rendered the action defective.
The court consequently set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim filed on August 24, 2026. It made no order as to costs.
Afenyo-Markin had sued Sammy Gyamfi and the Multimedia Group for GH¢15 million over what he described as an “extortionist” tag.
In its ruling, the court considered whether particulars contained in the statement of claim could cure the omission in the writ.
It examined the Supreme Court’s decision in Owusu-Domena v Amoah, where the apex court held that particulars in a statement of claim could cure a defective endorsement where the defendant did not raise an objection and participated fully in the proceedings.
The court, however, distinguished the present case from that decision. It explained that Sammy Gyamfi entered a conditional appearance at the outset and immediately challenged the writ.
The court therefore disagreed with the plaintiff’s position that the particulars in the statement of claim could cure the defect.
The court held that specific legal remedies require compliance with particular procedural rules governing them.
It cited Order 57 of C.I. 47 which governs defamation actions and referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in consolidated cases involving Alex Onuma and others against Newmont.
Order 57, Rule 2 requires a writ in a libel action to be endorsed with sufficient particulars of the publication complained of.
Rule 3(1) also requires particulars of facts and matters relied upon where a plaintiff alleges that words were used in a defamatory sense other than their ordinary meaning.
The court concluded that failure to endorse the writ with sufficient particulars rendered the action defective.
It also declined to consider an amended process filed in the course of the proceedings.
Citing Ahin Akwa II v Okai Jah III, it held that an amendment could not be sought to defeat an objection to a process already pending before the court.
