The High Court in Accra has thrown out a defamation suit filed by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Sammy Gyamfi, describing the action as defective.
The court presided over by Justice Agyenim Boateng of the General Jurisdiction 1 Division of the Law Court Complex, held that the writ failed to meet the special legal requirements needed for the court to entertain a defamation action.
Afenyo-Markin filed the suit on August 24, 2026, asking the court to award him GH¢15 million in general, aggravated and exemplary damages and to order Sammy Gyamfi to publish a full and unqualified retraction and apology with the same prominence as the original publication.
But, the action was set aside after lawyers for Sammy Gyamfi, led by Seth Anyaaba and Gideon Abotsi, raised a preliminary objection to the competency of the action.
Paa Kwesi Absidoo, is the lead Counsel for Alexander Afenyo-Markin who is the Plaintiff.
By Court
In his ruling, Justice Agyenim Boateng dismissed an attempt to cure the defect with an amended writ, stating: “It is trite that an amendment cannot be granted or sought for the purpose of conflicting an objection to a process that is pending before the court.
He said from the above authority, the Court had no intent to take into consideration the said amended process as far as the ruling of the objection was concerned.”
Turning to Order 57 Rule 2 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, C.I. 47, which he said creates a specific requirement for defamation actions, the Court examined the principle in it.
He said, before a writ is issued in an action for libel, “it shall be endorsed with a statement giving sufficient particulars of the publication in respect of which the action is brought to enable them to be identified.”
Relying heavily on the Supreme Court decision in Owusu Domena v Amoah [2015/2016] 1 SCGLR 795-796, Justice Boateng quoted: “The reliefs endorsed by the plaintiff on the writ raised no claim known in tort. Though the category of tort is not closed, malice or recklessness is not a tortious libel.
“It must be pleaded in relation to a specific tort. The plaintiff is required to give particulars of the libellous publication complained of in the endorsement to the writ as required by Order 57 Rule 2 of C.I. 47.”
He explained that while Order 81 of C.I. 47 can cure such non-compliance where a defendant fails to object and fully participates in proceedings, that principle did not apply here.
“The question begging to be answered is this: Are the facts as contained in the Owusu Domena case the same as the instant case? – The applicant says no, the plaintiff says yes.
“With respect, I am unable to agree with the position taken by learned counsel for the plaintiff. This is because the applicant right at the onset of the case entered a conditional appearance and immediately followed it up with the instant motion,” the judge held.
Justice Boateng stressed that specific legal remedies require the application of specific rules.
He said “Order 57 on defamation, Order 58 on commercial claims, Order 59 on money lenders and mortgage actions, Order 60 on insolvency proceedings – these special reliefs require their special rules in order to properly invoke the jurisdiction of the court. Defamation is no exception.”
He further cited the Supreme Court’s consolidated decision in Alex Onuma & Anor v Newmont, Emmanuel Achiaw & Ors v Newmont Ghana Gold and Isaac Konney & Anor v Newmont (2021), which reaffirmed that “a writ in a libel claim must contain an endorsement giving sufficient particulars of the allegation.”
“In conclusion, and relying on the authorities cited supra, I agree with the applicants that not endorsing the particulars of the purported defamatory publication in the writ of summons makes the entire action defective,” Justice Boateng ruled.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s writ of summons and statement of claim filed on August 24 were set aside. The judge made no order as to costs.
