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