The High Court has struck out the defamation suit filed by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi, ruling that the writ of summons failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements governing libel actions.

The suit followed public exchanges between the two over alleged losses of US$1.7 billion associated with the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025. Afenyo-Markin had raised concerns about the reported losses, while Sammy Gyamfi disputed the Minority Leader’s claims and subsequently accused him of attempted extortion.

Dissatisfied with the allegations, Mr Afenyo-Markin initiated defamation proceedings against Mr Gyamfi.

However, lawyers for the GoldBod CEO entered a conditional appearance and applied to set aside the writ of summons, arguing that it was defective because it failed to comply with the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), which prescribe specific requirements for writs in libel actions.

Judge’s Reasons for Striking Out the Suit

In its ruling, the court held that Order 57 Rule 2 of C.I. 47 requires a writ in an action for libel to be endorsed with sufficient particulars of the allegedly defamatory publication to enable it to be identified.

The judge emphasised that the requirement was not a mere technicality but a specific procedural obligation governing defamation proceedings.

The court explained that the rules governing particular categories of legal actions must be complied with to properly invoke the jurisdiction of the court. It cited Order 57, which deals with defamation proceedings, alongside other specialised provisions of C.I. 47 governing commercial claims, moneylenders and mortgage actions, and insolvency proceedings.

According to the judge, the general provisions of the Rules could not automatically be relied upon to excuse non-compliance with specific procedural requirements applicable to defamation cases.

The court also considered other Supreme Court decisions in which the court addressed the failure to include the required particulars of an allegedly defamatory publication in the endorsement on a writ.

In one of the cases, Owusu Domena v Amoh, the particulars contained in the statement of claim were treated as curing the defect, particularly because the defendant had not raised an objection and had participated fully in the proceedings.

However, the judge distinguished the circumstances of the present case, noting that Mr Gyamfi’s lawyers had entered a conditional appearance and promptly challenged the writ through the application before the court.

The judge was therefore unable to accept the argument that the particulars contained in the statement of claim could cure the defect in the writ in the circumstances of the case.

The court further relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in consolidated cases involving Alex Onuma and others against Newmont, which underscored the importance of compliance with Order 57 Rules 2 and 3(1) of C.I. 47 in defamation proceedings.

Having considered the applicable rules and authorities, the judge agreed with the applicant 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 plaintiff’s writ of summons and statement of claim, filed on August 24, 2026. The judge further ordered that there would be no order as to costs.