JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.
On 26 January 1971, the applicants took out a writ of summons accompanied by a statement of claim against the defendants. It is not necessary to set out the nature of the claim but it is noteworthy that apart from endorsing the address of the third defendant on the said writ of summons, the addresses of the first and second defendants were not indicated; Sunyani and Kumasi were the towns respectively appended, against the names of the first and second defendants. On the same day, 26 January 1971 the applicants, by their solicitor, applied to this court by an ex parte motion praying for substituted service of the writ of summons and the statement of claim by ordering the said documents to be served on the third defendant by prepaid registered post. Later on in this ruling I shall consider whether it is proper for the motion to be made ex parte.
Apparently the first and second defendants were lorry owners who had insured their respective vehicles with the third defendant. The said vehicles were involved in an accident caused, the plaintiffs alleged, by the negligence of the drivers for the first and second defendants and this accident founds the action which is the subject-matter of the writ of summons. The affidavit of the applicants was sworn to by their solicitor's clerk and because it is the mainstay of the applicants' application and to some extent decisive of whether this application should be granted or not I set it out hereunder in extenso:
"I, Felix Ofosu-Apenteng of Tamale, make oath and say as follows:
(1) That I am a clerk to Mr. E. O. Appiah, solicitor instructed by the plaintiffs [the applicants] to prosecute their claims herein on their behalf and I have his authority to make this affidavit on their behalf.
(2) That the plaintiffs have today issued out of this honourable court the writ of summons herein accompanied by a statement of claim against the defendants herein.
(3) That the claims herein arose out of a motor accident in which two vehicles owned by the first and second defendants collided on the road.
(4) That names of the first and second defendants were disclosed by a police report on the accident which was obtained on behalf of the plaintiffs. This police report disclosed that the address of the said owners of the vehicle were not given even though these particulars were required by law to be given to the police.
(5) That the police report disclosed that both these owners had effected insurance cover w
