2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice F.G. Korbieh, J.A., writing for a panel of the Ghana Court of Appeal that included Barbara Ackah‑Yensu, J.A., and H. Kwofie, J.A., addressed a preliminary legal objection raised by the 1st, 2nd, and 4th respondents in contempt proceedings. The applicants sought to commit the respondents to prison for alleged breaches of prior court orders. Respondents argued the Court’s jurisdiction was not properly invoked because they were not personally served, relying on Article 19(3) of the Constitution and authorities like Barclays Bank v Ghana Cable and Ex Parte Millicom. Applicants had obtained an order for substituted service under Order 7 of C.I. 47, specifying postings at House No. 60 F/1, Osu, the Adutso Family House and Family Land Office at Abokobi near the Fish Pond, and the Court of Appeal notice board. The Court held substituted service was properly effected, emphasized the quasi‑criminal nature of contempt but recognized personal service can be dispensed with, and noted respondents’ participation by filing affidavits in opposition bound them to the proceedings. The preliminary objection was dismissed.
F. G. KORBIEH, J. A.
On the 10/5/2017, the applicants herein filed an application praying this Court to commit the respondents to prison terms for contempt of court citing various breaches of orders of the Court the respondents had committed.
The application could not be moved on the return date for reasons of non-service on the respondents and the case continued to be adjourned until the 20/11/2017 when the 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents filed a notice of their intention to raise a preliminary legal objection to the application altogether.
They intimated that the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the application to commit them for contempt of court had not been properly invoked.
On the 16/1/2018, this Court heard the argument for and against the notice filed by the1st, 2nd and 4th respondents.
Their lawyer, Alfred Agyei-Mensah, Esq. , argued as follows: the applicants have failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the application to commit the 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents for contempt of court because the posting of the notices as ordered in the order for substituted service was not posted on the residences where the three respondents reside but elsewhere.
Counsel referred to article 19(3) of the Constitution which provides that the trial of a person charged with a criminal offence shall take place in his presence after he has been duly notified of the trial, among other things.
He also cited the case of Barclays Bank of Ghana Ltd. v Ghana Cable Co.
Ltd. and Others [1998-99] SCGLR which decided that proceedings against a party are deemed to commence only after service on the party or notice on that party.
The preliminary legal objection was opposed by counsel for the applicants in the person of Baffour Assasie Gyimah, Esq. who contended that even though personal service is required in contempt cases, substituted service is permissible under Order 7 of the High Court Civil (Procedure Rules), 2004 (C. I. 47) and that he had obtained an order for substituted service on the 20/6/2017 to serve the respondents by substituted service.
Curiously he cited the case of the Republic v. High Court (Commercial Division) Accra; Ex Parte Millicom Ghana Ltd. &Others (Superphone Co Ltd. Interested Party) [2009] SCGLR 41(holding 1) in which the Supreme Court held that proceedings in an application for contempt could not commence until the court has satisfied itself that the respondents to the application had been personally so served.
He