Sammy Gyamfi has been validly served despite refusing writ – Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers
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 reports that the Plaintiff is avoiding service of the Writ as “not only untrue but also elementarily incomprehensible in law.”
According to the statement, the writ in the case, Osahen Alexander Afenyo-Markin vrs Samuel Adu Gyamfi a.k.a Sammy Gyamfi & Anor (SUIT NO. GJ/1029/2026) was filed on 24th August, 2026.
The firm stated that on 26th August 2026, an Accra-based law firm by name Avine & Partners, per a supposed 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.
“With this understanding that a bailiff from the registry of the court duly served the Writ on the firm,” the statement signed by C. Paa Kwesi Asafo, Esquire, said.
“Strangely, the lawyers for Mr. Sammy Gyamfi, on 27th August, 2026, returned the Writ to the registry claiming their client had changed his mind on service. On that same day, when the Bailiff then attempted personal service on Mr. Sammy Gyamfi at his office, he refused to accept service of the writ and instructed his security personnel to send the bailiff out of the building,” it added.
Dehyena Chambers explained that under Ghanaian civil law practice, it is fundamentally clear that it is the Plaintiff who causes a writ to be issued and instantly receives a copy from the registry when same is filed, while the registry carries the duty to serve the Defendant with his copy of the writ.
“It is 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,” the lawyers said
.”It must be emphasized that it is the Defendant who first authorised his lawyers to accept service of the writ, which they complied with only for the lawyers to return the process after service had been effected on them. Yet when personal service was attempted on the Defendant, he refused same, according to the bailiff, the statement noted.
The lawyers further cited Order 7, rule 12(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C. I. 47, which provides that 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 stressed.
Dehyena Chambers urged those spreading a contrary narrative to desist, insisting 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 suit against him and is required by law to file his appearance and defence to the suit before the Court.”
About The Author
