Lawyers for Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin have dismissed claims that their client is deliberately delaying or avoiding the service of a writ on Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer, Sammy Gyamfi, in a defamation case.
Dehyena Chambers, representing Mr Afenyo-Markin, says the writ has already been served on Mr Gyamfi’s lawyers after they formally notified the Accra High Court that they had his “express instructions and authority” to accept the court processes on his behalf.
The clarification follows reports concerning the circumstances surrounding the service of the writ filed by Mr Afenyo-Markin against Mr Gyamfi.
In a statement dated Saturday, August 29, the lawyers said the writ was filed on August 24, 2026. Two days later, Ayine & Partners, the law firm representing Mr Gyamfi, wrote to the Registrar of the High Court, General Division, Accra, confirming that it had authority to accept service on his behalf.
According to Dehyena Chambers, a court bailiff subsequently served the writ on Ayine & Partners.
“On 26th August 2026, an Accra-based law firm by name Ayine & Partners, per a supposed lawyer named Seth Nyaaba Esq., wrote to the Registrar of the High Court informing him that the law firm had Mr Sammy Gyamfi’s ‘express instructions and authority’ to accept service of the writ on his behalf,” the statement said.
“It was with this understanding that a bailiff from the registry of the court duly served the Writ on the firm,” it added.
The lawyers, however, said Ayine & Partners returned the writ to the court registry on August 27, claiming that Mr Gyamfi had subsequently changed his position on accepting service through the firm.
They further alleged that when the bailiff later attempted to serve Mr Gyamfi personally at his office, the GoldBod CEO declined to receive the documents.
“On that same day when the Bailiff then attempted personal service on Mr Sammy Gyamfi at his office, he refused to accept the service of writ and instructed his security personnel to send the bailiff out of the building,” the statement said.
Dehyena Chambers therefore described as “untrue” suggestions that Mr Afenyo-Markin was responsible for delaying service of the writ.
“It therefore cannot be the Plaintiff who is avoiding service of the writ on the Defendant as alleged on social media. This is a muddling of the rules of civil law practice in Ghana which must be disregarded,” it stated.
The lawyers further relied on Order 7, Rule 12(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), which provides that where a lawyer gives a written undertaking to accept service of a writ on behalf of a defendant, service on that lawyer constitutes valid service.
“In any event, under Order 7, rule 12(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C. I. 47, a writ is duly served once it is delivered to a lawyer who has undertaken in writing to accept service on behalf of a client. Accordingly, Mr Sammy Gyamfi has been validly served,” the statement said.
The firm maintained that Mr Gyamfi is therefore required to respond to the suit within the period prescribed by law.
“Whatever be the situation, once his solicitors accepted the writ, Mr Sammy Gyamfi is fixed with Knowledge of the writ against him and is required by law to file his appearance and defence to the suit before the Court,” the statement added.
Mr Afenyo-Markin instituted the defamation action at the Accra High Court on August 24 following comments made by Mr Gyamfi during the August 22 edition of JoyNews’ Newsfile programme.
The Minority Leader alleges that Mr Gyamfi defamed him by describing him as an “extortionist” during a discussion on GoldBod and reported losses associated with the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme.
Mr Afenyo-Markin is suing Mr Gyamfi and Multimedia Group Limited and is seeking damages, a retraction and apology, as well as an injunction restraining further publication of the alleged defamatory statements.
The latest development centres on whether the written authorisation given by Mr Gyamfi’s lawyers was sufficient to constitute valid service and whether the subsequent return of the writ affects the proceedings.
The substantive defamation case is yet to be determined by the court.
Below is the lawyer’s statement:
