Court Reveals Legal Flaw That Led To Dismissal Of Afenyo-Markin’s GH¢15m Suit

The High Court’s General Jurisdiction 1 has dismissed Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s GH¢15 million defamation suit against Ghana Gold Board Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi, ruling that the writ used to initiate the case was incurably defective and incompetent.

The court found that the writ could not properly invoke its jurisdiction, bringing the proceedings under that particular action to an end. The decision centred on a procedural defect rather than a determination of whether the statements at the heart of the dispute were defamatory.

In reaching its ruling, the court relied on the cases of Coleman v Newmont, concerning the applicable procedural rule, and Owusu Domena, which addresses the need to raise objections promptly.

The outcome marks a significant development in the legal dispute between the two political figures. However, the ruling should not be interpreted as a finding that the allegations complained of were true or that they did not damage Afenyo-Markin’s reputation. The court’s decision, as described, focused on the competence of the writ.

Afenyo-Markin announced the legal action in Parliament on August 24, 2026. He said the suit followed allegations of extortion made against him during a disagreement involving GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme.

The Minority Leader maintained that the allegations were false and intended to damage his reputation. The suit also named Multimedia Group Limited as a defendant.

The proceedings had previously generated disagreement over service of the court documents. Gyamfi authorised his lawyers at Ayine & Partners to accept the writ on his behalf. Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers later maintained that service had been completed and rejected suggestions that their client was avoiding the process.

The latest ruling shifts attention from the substantive defamation claims to the procedural requirements governing how a case must be brought before a court. Such requirements are important because a court must be properly seized of a matter before it can proceed to determine the underlying dispute.

With the writ declared defective, the proceedings under that action have ended. The information available does not establish whether Afenyo-Markin intends to challenge the ruling or pursue any further legal steps.

The decision therefore resolves the case in its current procedural form without settling the underlying question of whether the statements complained of amounted to defamation.

Source: https://x.com/joy997fm/status/2110336202536542279?s=46

Ghanaupdate247 feedback-opera-news-app@opera.com