Afenyo-Markin’s Lawyers Reject Claims Sammy Gyamfi Is Evading Writ Service

Lawyers for the Minority Leader, Osahen Alexander Afenyo-Markin, have dismissed claims that their client is avoiding service of a writ in his defamation suit against the Acting Managing Director of the Precious Minerals Marketing Company (PMMC), Samuel Adu Gyamfi, popularly known as Sammy Gyamfi.

In a press statement dated August 29, 2026, Dehyena Chambers, solicitors for Afenyo-Markin, described the allegation as not only untrue but also “elementarily incomprehensive in law.”

According to the statement, the writ in Suit No. GJ/1029/2026 was filed on August 24, 2026. On August 26, 2026, an Accra-based law firm, Ayine & Partners, through a lawyer named Seth Nyaaba Esq., wrote to the Registrar of the High Court informing him that the firm had Mr. Sammy Gyamfi’s “express instructions and authority” to accept service of the writ on his behalf. Based on that, a bailiff from the court registry served the writ on the firm.

The statement said strangely, lawyers for Mr Gyamfi on August 27, 2026, returned the writ to the registry, claiming their client had changed his mind on service. It added that on the same day, when the bailiff attempted personal service on Mr Gyamfi at his office, he refused to accept it and instructed his security personnel to send the bailiff out of the building.

Dehyena Chambers explained that under Ghanaian civil law practice, it is the plaintiff who causes a writ to be issued and instantly receives a copy from the registry when it is filed. The registry then has the duty to serve the defendant with a copy.

“It 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,” the statement said.

The firm emphasized that it was the defendant who first authorised his lawyers to accept service, only for the lawyers to return the process after service had been effected, and the defendant himself refused personal 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,” it stated.

The lawyers urged those spreading the contrary narrative to desist, noting that the relevant correspondence and the bailiff’s official record speak for themselves.

“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.