Key Takeaways
- Plaintiff’s counsel states the writ was served on 26 August 2026 through Gyamfi’s law firm Ayine & Partners.
- Defendant’s lawyers returned the writ and declined personal service, yet written authorisation satisfies Order 7, Rule 12(2) of the High Court Rules.
- The case originates from Gyamfi’s description of the Minority Leader as an “extortionist” during a televised discussion on the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme.
- The High Court will adjudicate the substantive defamation claim after the service dispute is resolved.
Lawyers representing Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo‑Markin issued a detailed statement on 29 August 2026 to counter social‑media claims that their client was avoiding service of a writ on GoldBod Chief Executive Sammy Gyamfi. The statement outlines the procedural steps taken after the writ was filed on 24 August 2026 and asserts that service was effected in accordance with Ghanaian civil procedure.
The clarification arrives amid an escalating political dispute over the performance of the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme, a matter that has drawn intense public scrutiny and parliamentary debate.
Procedural Background and Service Rules
Ayine & Partners, acting for Gyamfi, submitted a written notice to the Registrar of the High Court on 26 August 2026 indicating that the firm possessed the “express instructions and authority” to accept service on the client’s behalf. Under Order 7, Rule 12(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, a writ served on a lawyer who has undertaken such a written commitment is deemed duly served.
The court bailiff, acting on the registrar’s record, delivered the writ to Ayine & Partners the same day. The procedural record therefore satisfies the statutory requirement for valid service, regardless of subsequent actions by the defendant.
The Dispute Over Service Validity
Gyamfi’s counsel later returned the writ to the court registry on 27 August, citing a change of mind about accepting service through the firm. A subsequent attempt by the bailiff to serve Gyamfi personally at his office was rebuffed, with the defendant’s security personnel escorting the bailiff from the premises.
Dehyena Chambers, representing Afenyo‑Markin, argues that the return of the writ does not negate the earlier valid service, as the legal effect of the written authorisation is irrevocable once the bailiff has executed service. The firm characterises claims of avoidance as a “muddling of the rules of civil law practice in Ghana.”
Implications for Defamation Litigation in Ghana
The dispute highlights the strategic importance of written authorisations in high‑profile defamation cases. By securing a clear service record, plaintiffs can pre‑empt procedural challenges that might otherwise delay substantive hearings.
Legal commentators note that the case may set a precedent for how political figures manage service of process when media statements trigger litigation. The reliance on statutory service rules reinforces the judiciary’s role in maintaining procedural certainty amidst politically charged disputes.
Looking Ahead
The High Court will now focus on the merits of the defamation claim, including the alleged “extortionist” remark and its impact on the Minority Leader’s reputation. Both parties are expected to file appearances and defenses within the statutory timeline.
Observers will watch the proceedings for indications of how Ghanaian courts balance freedom of expression with protection against reputational harm, especially in the context of public policy debates surrounding the gold purchase programme.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!