The High Court in Accra has set aside a defamation suit filed by Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Sammy Gyamfi after ruling that the case did not meet the legal requirements for defamation proceedings.

In a ruling delivered by Justice Agyenim Boateng of the General Jurisdiction 1 Division at the Law Court Complex, the court held that the writ of summons lacked sufficient details identifying the publication at the centre of the complaint.

Afenyo-Markin filed the suit on August 24, 2026, seeking GH¢15 million in general, aggravated and exemplary damages. He also wanted the court to order Sammy Gyamfi to issue a full retraction and apology with the same prominence as the original publication.

The suit was set aside after lawyers for Sammy Gyamfi, led by Seth Anyaaba and Gideon Abotsi, challenged its validity. Paa Kwesi Absidoo represented Afenyo-Markin.

Justice Boateng rejected an attempt to address the defect through an amended writ, explaining that a party could not use an amendment to overcome an objection already before the court.

The judge relied on Order 57 Rule 2 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, C.I. 47, which requires a writ in a libel action to contain enough particulars of the publication complained of to identify it.

He also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Owusu Domena v Amoah, which established that allegations of malice or recklessness do not, on their own, constitute the tort of libel and must be linked to a specific tort.

The court further considered whether Order 81, which may allow certain procedural defects to be overlooked, could apply. Justice Boateng said it did not, noting that Sammy Gyamfi had entered a conditional appearance and promptly filed the objection.

Citing previous Supreme Court decisions involving Newmont, the judge reaffirmed that a writ in a libel claim must include sufficient particulars of the allegedly defamatory publication.

“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,” he ruled.

The court consequently set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim filed on August 24. No order was made as to costs.