By: Joyce Owusu
August 31, 2026
Lawyers for Minority Leader Osahen Alexander Afenyo-Markin have rejected claims that Samuel Adu Gyamfi, also known as Sammy Gyamfi, has not been properly served with a writ in a case pending before the High Court. The lawyers, Dehyena Chambers, say the writ was validly served on Gyamfi’s lawyers after they indicated that they had authority to accept service on his behalf. The dispute concerns Suit No. GJ/1029/2026, styled Osahen Alexander Afenyo-Markin vrs. Samuel Adu Gyamfi a.k.a Sammy Gyamfi & Anor.
In a press statement dated August 29, 2026, the law firm said the writ was filed on August 24, 2026, and that two days later, on August 26, a law firm, Ayine & Partners, acting for Gyamfi wrote to Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers indicating that it had the authority and instructions to accept service of the writ on the defendant’s behalf. According to Dehyena Chambers, the response was that a bailiff would formally serve the writ on the defendant through the authorised lawyers. The lawyers said that, however, on August 27, Gyamfi’s lawyers returned the writ, claiming that their client had not been served. Dehyena Chambers disputed that position, stating that the lawyers had already accepted service after indicating that they were authorised to do so.
The firm further alleged that when a bailiff subsequently attempted to effect personal service on Gyamfi, the attempt was unsuccessful because, according to the statement, Gyamfi instructed security personnel to remove the bailiff from the building. The lawyers argued that such conduct could not invalidate service that had already been accepted by lawyers authorised to receive the process on their client’s behalf. Dehyena Chambers based its position partly on Order 7, Rule 12(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). The provision, according to the lawyers, allows a writ to be delivered to a lawyer who undertakes to accept service on behalf of a client.
On that basis, the firm maintained that Sammy Gyamfi had been validly served and that any suggestion otherwise was legally inaccurate. The lawyers also said the relevant correspondence between the parties, together with the bailiff’s official record, supported their account of what transpired during the attempted service. They urged the public to disregard what they described as a contrary narrative about the service of the writ. Rather than continue the dispute publicly, the lawyers said Gyamfi should proceed with the legal process by filing his appearance and defence to the suit before the court, as required by law.
The statement was issued by Dehyena Chambers in response to what it described as “false claims regarding service of writ on Sammy Gyamfi.” The lawyers maintained however that their position was based on the sequence of events surrounding the delivery and acceptance of the writ and the applicable rules governing service of court processes.
