The High Court’s General Jurisdiction 1 has struck out Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s GH¢15 million defamation suit against Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi.

The court ruled that the writ of summons was incurably defective because it failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for libel actions.

The court held that the defect affected the validity of the process and meant that the writ could not properly invoke the court’s jurisdiction.

The suit followed public exchanges between Mr Afenyo-Markin and Mr Gyamfi over alleged losses of US$1.7 billion associated with the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025.

Mr Afenyo-Markin had raised concerns about the reported losses, while Mr Gyamfi disputed his claims and subsequently accused the Minority Leader of attempted extortion.

Mr Afenyo-Markin denied the allegations and announced the defamation action in Parliament on August 24, 2026.

The suit also named Multimedia Group Limited as a defendant.

Why the court struck out the suit

Lawyers for Mr Gyamfi entered a conditional appearance and applied to set aside the writ, arguing that it failed to comply with the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).

The court relied on Order 57 Rule 2, which requires a writ in a libel action to be endorsed with sufficient particulars of the allegedly defamatory publication to enable it to be identified.

The judge held that this requirement was not merely a technicality but a specific procedural requirement for defamation proceedings.

The court also considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Owusu Domena v Amoh, where particulars contained in a statement of claim were treated as curing a defect in the writ because the defendant had not promptly objected and had participated fully in the proceedings.

The judge distinguished that case from the present one because Mr Gyamfi’s lawyers had entered a conditional appearance and promptly challenged the writ.

The court therefore rejected the argument that the particulars in the statement of claim could cure the defect.

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

Having considered the applicable rules and authorities, the court agreed that the failure to endorse the writ with sufficient particulars of the allegedly defamatory publication rendered it defective.

The court consequently set aside Mr Afenyo-Markin’s writ of summons and statement of claim filed on August 24, 2026.

The ruling brings the proceedings under the defective writ to an end. It does not determine whether the statements complained of were defamatory.

The court made no order as to costs.