Lawyers representing Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin have rejected claims that their client is avoiding legal service in the ongoing defamation case involving Samuel Adu Gyamfi, popularly known as Sammy Gyamfi.
In a press statement dated August 29, 2026, Dehyena Chambers, counsel for Afenyo-Markin, described reports suggesting that the Plaintiff was evading service of the writ as “untrue” and based on an incorrect understanding of Ghanaian civil procedure.
The statement explained that the writ in the case was filed on August 24, 2026, after which, on August 26, lawyers for Sammy Gyamfi, Ayine & Partners, wrote to the Registrar of the High Court indicating that they had received express instructions and authority from their client to accept service of the writ and all accompanying processes on his behalf.
Ayine & Partners, according to the letter, specifically requested that service be effected through their chambers at House No. C809/29, 1st Close Lily Street, East Legon, Accra.
Dehyena Chambers said that, based on this written undertaking, a bailiff from the court registry proceeded to serve the writ on Sammy Gyamfi’s lawyers.
However, the lawyers for Afenyo-Markin stated that on August 27, 2026, Sammy Gyamfi’s lawyers returned the writ to the court registry, indicating that their client had changed his mind about accepting service through them.
The statement further alleged that when personal service was subsequently attempted on Sammy Gyamfi at his office, he refused to accept the writ and instructed his security personnel to prevent the bailiff from entering the premises.
Dehyena Chambers maintained that under Ghanaian civil procedure, it is the Plaintiff who causes a writ to be issued, while the court registry is responsible for serving the Defendant with a copy of the writ.
The lawyers also relied on Order 7, Rule 12(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), arguing that a writ is duly served when it is delivered to a lawyer who has undertaken in writing to accept service on behalf of a client.
On that basis, Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers insist that Sammy Gyamfi has been validly served and is required to file his appearance and defence to the suit.
The legal team has consequently urged persons circulating what it described as a “contrary narrative” to desist, stressing that the relevant correspondence and the bailiff’s official records would speak for themselves.
