The High Court has struck out a defamation action brought by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi after ruling that the writ of summons failed to meet mandatory procedural requirements for libel cases.
The court set aside both the writ of summons and the statement of claim filed by Afenyo-Markin on August 24, 2026, holding that the originating process did not contain sufficient particulars of the allegedly defamatory publication as required under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).
The ruling follows a legal dispute between the two over public statements concerning alleged losses of US$1.7 billion linked to the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025.
Afenyo-Markin had raised concerns about the reported losses, while Gyamfi disputed his claims and subsequently accused the Minority Leader of attempted extortion. Afenyo-Markin later initiated defamation proceedings in response to the allegations.
However, lawyers for the GoldBod CEO challenged the validity of the action, entering a conditional appearance and applying to have the writ set aside on the grounds that it did not comply with the specific procedural rules governing libel proceedings.
### Court cites mandatory requirements for libel actions
In its ruling, the court relied on Order 57 Rule 2 of C.I. 47, which requires a writ in a libel action to contain sufficient particulars of the allegedly defamatory publication to enable it to be identified.
The judge stressed that the requirement was not merely a technical formality but a specific procedural obligation that must be satisfied when initiating defamation proceedings.
The court explained that although the general provisions of C.I. 47 govern civil proceedings, litigants must also comply with special rules applicable to particular categories of cases.
It rejected the argument that general procedural provisions could automatically excuse a failure to meet the specific requirements governing defamation actions.
### Judge distinguishes previous Supreme Court decision
The court also examined previous judicial decisions on whether particulars contained in a statement of claim could remedy defects in a writ of summons.
In the case of *Owusu Domena v Amoh*, particulars included in the statement of claim were treated as curing a defect in the writ, particularly because the defendant had not objected and had participated fully in the proceedings.
The judge, however, distinguished that case from the dispute between Afenyo-Markin and Gyamfi, noting that the GoldBod CEO’s lawyers had promptly challenged the writ after entering a conditional appearance.
The court therefore declined to accept that the particulars in Afenyo-Markin’s statement of claim could cure the procedural defect in the circumstances of the case.
It also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in consolidated cases involving Alex Onuma and others against Newmont, which highlighted the importance of compliance with Order 57 Rules 2 and 3(1) of C.I. 47.
Having considered the applicable rules and judicial authorities, the court agreed with Gyamfi’s lawyers that the failure to endorse the writ with sufficient particulars of the allegedly defamatory publication rendered the process defective.
The court consequently set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim.
It made no order as to costs.
The ruling centred on compliance with procedural requirements for initiating a libel action; it did not, on the basis of the decision described, determine the truth or falsity of the underlying allegations exchanged between the two politicians.
