Edited by Jürgen Basedow, Giesela Rühl, Franco Ferrari and Pedro de Miguel Asensio
I. Sources of private international law
1. Major legislation
In Ghana, private international law is not codified in a single statute. Indeed, there are only a few statutes solely dedicated to private international law issues. Rules of private international law are often contained in legislation dealing with other matters. Examples of legislation that contain private international law-related provisions include: the Administration of Estates Act 1961 (Act 63); the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010 (Act 798); the Bills of Exchange Act 1961 (Act 55); the Companies Act 1963 (179); the Courts Act 1993 (Act 459); the Diplomatic Immunities Act 1962 (Act 148); the Electronic Transactions Act 2008 (Act 772); the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323); the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (CI 47); the Interpretation Act 2009 (Act 792); the Intestate Succession Act 1985 (PNDC Law 111); the Limitation Act 1972 (NRCD 54); the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971 (Act 367); and the Wills Act 1971 (Act 360).
2. International conventions
Ghana is a dualist state – an international convention does not have the force of law in the Ghanaian legal system unless it is expressly incorporated into national law. This means that the fact that Ghana has signed an international convention is not enough to give the convention force of law in Ghana.
Ghana is a party to a number of conventions dealing with private law matters and having an effect on private international law. It is a party to the United Nations Convention of 10 June 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention, 330 UNTS 3) and the Convention of 12 October 1929 for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw Convention, 137 LNTS 11). It is a signatory to the Convention of 28 May 1999 for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air (Montreal Convention, 2242 UNTS 309), the United Nations Convention of 11 December 2008 on contracts for the international carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea (Rotterdam Rules, UN Doc A/RES/63/122, 63 UNTS 122), the UNIDROIT Convention of 28 May 1988 on International Financial Leasing (2312 UNTS 195, 27 ILM 931), the UNIDROIT Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment 2001 (2307 UNTS 285) and the Ottawa Factoring Convention 1988 (UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring of 28 May 1988, 2323 UNTS 373, 27 ILM 943). It is a party to the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Bills of Lading signed at Brussels, 25 August 1924 (Hague Rules, 120 LNTS 155). However, it is not party to the Protocol to amend the International Convention for the unification of certain rules of law relating to bills of lading signed at Brussels on 25 August 1924 (Hague Rules), adopted on 23 February 1968 (1968 Visby Protocol, 1412 UNTS 128). Ghana has signed the United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea of 31 March 1978 (Hamburg Rules, 1695 UNTS 3). However, it has not ratified it. Accordingly, it is not in force in Ghana. Notwithstanding this, the Supreme Court has held that the convention may provide useful guidance in deciding cases relating to the →carriage of goods by sea. It has also ratified the UNCITRAL Limitation Convention (Convention of 14 June 1974 on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods, 1151 UNTS 3; 13 ILM 952).
Ghana is neither a member of the →Hague Conference on Private International Law nor a party to any of the Hague conventions. Ghana is a party to the treaty establishing the Economic Community of West African States 1993 (35 ILM 660). Article 57 of the treaty enjoins Member States to ‘cooperate in judicial and legal matters with a view to p. 1harmonizing their judicial and legal systems’. However, no initiative of private international law significance has been undertaken under the provision.
3. Role of case-law
Case-law plays a very important role in Ghanaian private international law. The main source of private international law rules is decided cases; however, such cases are relatively few. Thus, on many issues, there is no authoritative pronouncement from the courts (and even less so the legislature). On such issues the Ghanaian courts often turn to the English common law and cases decided thereunder for persuasive authority. Cases from other jurisdictions are seldom referred to in Ghanaian private international law decisions.
4. Role of doctrinal writing
Private international law scholarship in Ghana is relatively underdeveloped. Until recently, there were few doctrinal writing and certainly no standard reference work on the subject. Doctrinal writings serve as persuasive authority in deciding private international law disputes.
II. History of private international law
Conditions in pre-colonial Ghana allowed for choice-of-law problems. Separate kingdoms and tribes with distinct customary laws interacted both commercially and interpersonally. There were also commercial and interpersonal relations between the inhabitants of pre-colonial Ghana and Europeans. These situations increased the potential for choice-of-law problems. For example, there were matrilineal and patrilineal family systems for various tribes. With this came different rules on →marriage, custody (→Guardianship, custody and parental responsibility), maintenance and succession. Children from matrilineal tribes were part of the mother’s family and inherited intestate property and office through their mother’s line. Children from patrilineal tribes were part of the father’s family and inherited intestate property and office through their father’s line. In a marriage between spouses from matrilineal and patrilineal tribes, choice-of-law problems could have arisen regarding which law determines which family the child belongs to and from which of the parents he can inherit.
The kingdoms and tribes, which were highly organized, developed rules and practices that aimed at conflicts avoidance. These rules and practices can be gleaned from the works of historians, sociologists and anthropologists who have explored pre-colonial Ghanaian societies. This author has been unable to locate an account of such rules and practices from an academic choice-of-law perspective, especially with regard to the positive rules for resolving choice-of-law problems. The barter system of trade, rules against intertribal marriages, restrictions on alienation of land to foreigners, the fact that strangers or foreigners in the pre-colonial societies ‘lived circumscribed lives’ and the ancient tradition of allowing a settling community of foreign merchants to govern itself by its own law are examples of rules and practices that inadvertently avoided choice-of-law issues in pre-colonial societies. However, it can be argued that no coherent body of choice-of-law rules – and certainly no choice-of-law treatise akin to those developed in Western legal systems – existed.
To date, there has been no systematic historical account of the origin and evolution of private international law as an academic discipline and a field of legal practice in Ghana. However, it can be argued that private international law began its life under the Supreme Court Ordinance of 1876 (Act 4). The Ordinance did two things of significance for Ghana’s private international law regime. First, it made the common law, the doctrines of equity and the statutes of general application applicable in Ghana. This meant that private international law problems that came before courts established by the Ordinance could be resolved using English rules. Second, the Ordinance mandated the application of customary law to the extent that the latter was not ‘repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience’. The application of this provision fostered interactions between the received English law and customary law and resulted in internal choice-of-law problems. In addressing internal choice-of-law issues, private international law principles became valuable. After independence on 6 March 1957, and with increased interaction with the outside world as a sovereign state, the Ghana courts have become more accustomed to dealing with private international law problems.
III. p. 1Administration of private international law
1. Special courts
There are no special courts dedicated to private international law problems. However, the jurisdiction given by statute to some courts makes it more likely that private international law disputes would come before them. For example, jurisdiction in matrimonial cases and maritime matters is specifically assigned to the High Court. It is also the more likely forum for actions to enforce a foreign judgment or arbitral awards. Indeed, the High Court has jurisdiction in all civil matters.
2. Application and enforcement of foreign law
In Ghana, foreign law is treated as fact. A person who relies on foreign law must prove it with evidence. Although it is a question of fact, the jury does not determine it; the determination of foreign law is for the court. An expert witness must provide proof of foreign law. The competence of an expert witness is a question of law for the judge. Merely presenting a judge with the text of a foreign law and leaving him to draw his own conclusions does not satisfy the requirements of proof by evidence. Where a party fails to meet the requisite standard of proof, which is proof on the balance of probabilities, the court will apply the presumption that the foreign law is the same as Ghanaian law. Although the concept of foreign law is not defined in any statute, it can be inferred from the Evidence Act 1975 that it encompasses the law of ‘an organisation of states to the extent that such law is not part of the law of Ghana’ and the laws of foreign states or their sub-divisions. In other words, both unincorporated international laws and foreign state laws are treated as foreign law.
IV. Basic principles of private international law
1. Jurisdiction in international matters
In actions in personam that involve a foreign element, the jurisdiction of the Ghanaian courts is determined and regulated by common law and statute. Like other common law countries, in Ghana, the foundation of jurisdiction in international matters is service. As long as the defendant can be served with the writ of summons, the courts will assume jurisdiction over him. Thus, the fact that a contract was executed and was to be performed abroad, or a tort was committed abroad does not deny jurisdiction to the Ghanaian courts.
For defendants who are outside the jurisdiction, the law allows for service of the writ on the defendant outside the jurisdiction. This has to be done with leave or permission of the court. The court shall not grant leave to serve notice of a writ out of the jurisdiction unless it is made sufficiently to appear to the court that: (i) the case is a proper one for service out of the jurisdiction; and (ii) the case falls within one of a number of statutorily defined grounds. These grounds include the fact that a contract was made in Ghana, a breach of contract occurred in Ghana or the contract contains a Ghanaian →choice of law or jurisdiction agreement, and the fact that a tort was committed in Ghana.
The exercise of the power granted to the courts to order service out of the jurisdiction is discretionary. The courts exercise this discretion with great care and resolve any doubt in favour of the prospective defendant. This is because an application for service out of the jurisdiction is made and heard ex parte; the foreign defendant is neither notified nor heard. It is deemed unjust to drag a person into Ghana to defend an action without substantial grounds and justification.
Jurisdiction agreements and arbitration agreements are respected in Ghanaian law. In other words, there is no legislation or case-law that prohibits courts from giving effect to such agreements. The courts are, however, not bound by a jurisdiction agreement and, where appropriate, they may refuse to give effect to it. This is because the jurisdiction of the courts is conferred by the constitution or statute and its existence cannot be ousted by individual contracts. However, the exercise of that jurisdiction may be influenced by the existence of a jurisdiction agreement and the Ghanaian courts’ jurisprudence reveals a willingness to uphold such agreements. An important issue in the context of enforcing arbitration agreements – and indeed jurisdiction agreements – is the severability or separability of such agreements from the rest of the agreement in which they are embodied. The central question is whether invalidity of the main contract invalidates the arbitration agreement. Under section 3(1) of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an arbitration agreement which forms, or is intended to form, part of another agreement shall not be regarded as invalid, non-existent or ineffective because that other agreement is invalid, or has p. 1not come into existence, or has become ineffective and shall for that purpose be treated as a distinct agreement. The Supreme Court has also held that an arbitration agreement is a ‘separate transaction’ which was unaffected by the unconstitutionality of the underlying contract.
In respect of arbitration, under Ghanaian law, where there is an arbitration agreement and a party commences an action in a court, the other party may on entering appearance and on notice to the party who commenced the action in court apply to the court to refer the action or a part of the action to which the arbitration agreement relates to arbitration. This applies to both domestic and international arbitration agreements. The court on hearing an application, shall, if satisfied that the matter in respect of which the application has been made is a matter in respect of which there is an arbitration agreement refer the matter to arbitration. The court will then stay its proceedings.
2. Choice of law
It is a fundamental principle of Ghanaian private international law that a contract is governed by the law chosen by the parties and, in the absence of such choice, by the law of the country with which the contract has its closest and most real connection. The approach to ascertaining judicially the proper law (→Proper law (doctrine)) of a contract is, in the absence of an express choice of law agreement, an objective and pragmatic one. The courts apply the standard of a reasonable business man and then consider what the parties would have intended had they considered the question of the proper law at the time the contract was executed. In doing this, certain rebuttable presumptions, such as the lex loci contractus and the lex loci solutionis, which are indications of connections of the contract with a jurisdiction, can be helpful. The weight given to each →connecting factor depends on the circumstances of a case. No one factor necessarily prevails. It is the responsibility of the court to weigh all the factors and come to a conclusion as to the proper law.
In a series of recent decisions the Supreme Court of Ghana has invoked art 181(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana 1992 (28 April 1992) and held that an international business or economic transaction to which the Government of Ghana is party which does not receive the prior approval of parliament is void and of no effect. Such contracts have been characterised as ‘unconstitutional contracts’. Although the Supreme Court has held that an arbitration agreement in such an international business or economic transaction remains unaffected by the invalidity of the underlying agreement, it remains to be decided whether a similar effect would be given to a choice-of-law clause in such a contract. For example, it remains to be resolved whether the government or party to an international business transaction to which the government is the other party can escape the constitutional requirement of parliamentary approval by providing that their contract is governed by foreign law and/or that disputes related to the contract should be heard in a foreign jurisdiction. An equally yet to be decided question is what effect an international arbitral award given in respect of an ‘unconstitutional contract’ will have in Ghana. But it is highly unlikely that a Ghanaian court will enforce such an international award.
There is no case that authoritatively decides the applicable law as far as →torts committed abroad are concerned. The common law double actionability rule has been considered in one case.
In Ghana, the categorization of property (→Property and proprietary rights) into movables and immovables is well established. For enactments in which the concepts are not defined, ‘immovable property means land’ (→Immovable property) and ‘movable property includes property of every description and growing crops, except immovable property? Whether a property is classified as movable or immovable will be decided by the →lex fori – that is, Ghanaian law. Movables are further classified into tangible and intangible movables. Examples of the latter are debts, goodwill, shares, mineral rights, patents and copyrights.
There appear to be no reported cases dealing with the law governing the transfer of movables. Ghanaian law governs the transfer of immovable property in Ghana, especially land and interests in land. Ghanaian law determines the formal and essential validity of the transfer of immovables. In other words, who can be parties to a transfer of immovable property in Ghana; whether the transfer should be in writing; the nature, scope and duration of the interest that p. 1can be transferred; and all other issues involving the transfer of immovables are governed by Ghanaian law.
c) Family matters
In Ghana, a →marriage is a union between a man and a woman. There is no legislation that gives same-sex unions the status of marriage in Ghana. Indeed, to the extent that consummation is an essential ingredient of a valid marriage, such marriages are indirectly outlawed, since they constitute ‘unnatural carnal knowledge’, which is a criminal offence under Ghanaian law.
The lex loci celebrationis governs the formal validity of marriage. And the prenuptial domicile of both parties to the marriage governs the essential validity of marriage. However, the dual domicile test would not be applied to defeat the legitimate claim of a person domiciled in Ghana who enters into a marriage with a foreign national, especially where such marriage is essentially valid under Ghanaian law.
In matrimonial causes the courts have jurisdiction where either party to the marriage is a Ghanaian, is domiciled in Ghana, or has been ordinarily resident in Ghana for at least three years immediately preceding the commencement of the proceedings. In a matrimonial cause, except in proceedings for a decree of nullity of a void marriage, the issues are determined as if both parties to the marriage were domiciled in Ghana at the commencement of the proceedings. In other words, the governing law in matrimonial causes is Ghanaian law.
The Ghanaian courts will recognize as valid a decree of divorce, nullity or presumption of death and dissolution of marriage, obtained by judicial process or otherwise, that is not contrary to natural justice and that has been granted by any tribunal that has a significant and substantial connection with the parties to the marriage or is in accordance with the law of the place where both parties to the marriage were ordinarily resident at the time of the action dissolving or annulling the marriage (→Divorce and personal separation).
d) Inheritance matters
Ghana adheres to the principle that →succession to the immovable estate of a person who dies intestate is governed by the lex situs. On the other hand, the law of the domicile of an intestate at the time of death governs succession to the movable property.
There are a number of statutorily defined rules governing the formal validity of wills. For example, a will shall be deemed to be properly executed if its execution conformed to the domestic law in force in the territory where it was executed, or in the territory where at the time of its execution or of the testator’s death, he was domiciled or had his habitual residence or in a state of which he was a national at either of those times (→Domicile, habitual residence and establishment). Also, so far as it disposes of immovable property, a will is deemed properly executed if its execution conformed to the domestic law in force in the territory where the property was situated. Statute law does not address the issue of essential validity of wills. At common law, to the extent that it disposes of movables, the law of the domicile of the testator at the time of his death determines the essential validity of their will.
3. Recognition and enforcement of judgments
The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Ghana is regulated by common law and statutory regimes (→Recognition and enforcement of judgments (common law)). Ghana is not party to any international treaty dealing with the enforcement of foreign judgments. It is not party to either the Hague Convention of 1 February 1971 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters (Hague Recognition and Enforcement Convention, 1144 UNTS 258) or the more recent Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on choice of court agreements (Hague Choice of Court Convention, 44 ILM 1294).
The common law and statutory regimes co-exist in parallel. The regime that applies to any particular foreign judgment is dependent on the country and court from which the judgment emanates. Thus, under the statutory regime, only judgments from specified courts in the designated country are enforceable under the regime. The regimes share some substantive law contents, but they are different in many respects. The statutory regime applies to judgments from specified courts in designated countries. Indeed, it is the exclusive means for enforcing judgments from such countries. The common law regime may be used to enforce judgments from countries not so designated.
The procedure in Ghana for enforcing foreign judgments, using the common law regime, p. 1is that the judgment creditor must issue a writ and, in the statement of claim, plead that the judgment debt is due and owing. The foreign judgment is used as evidence for that pleading. He can also apply for summary judgment on the ground that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The judgment creditor can also ignore the foreign judgment and bring a fresh cause of action in Ghana. This is because, at common law, a foreign judgment does not merge with the original cause of action. Consequently, the foreign judgment creditor has the option of suing on either the original cause of action or the foreign judgment.
A party who seeks to enforce a foreign judgment using the common law regime must satisfy the Ghanaian rules as to jurisdiction in international matters. That is, he must be able to serve the writ of summons on the defendant. Where the judgment debtor, who has assets in Ghana, is outside the jurisdiction and neither domiciled nor resident in Ghana, serving a writ on him can be problematic as the existing law does not provide for service out of the jurisdiction on the basis of an action to enforce a foreign judgment at common law.
There are at least three conditions that a judgment creditor must satisfy to have a foreign judgment enforced in Ghana under the common law regime. First, the court that gave the judgment must have been competent under Ghana private international law. Second, the judgment must be for a fixed sum of money. Third, the judgment must be final and conclusive. Residence and submission are recognised basis of international competence. The common law regime provides defences to an action to enforce a foreign judgment. A foreign judgment tainted with fraud, procured through breach of natural justice or whose enforcement would be against the →public policy (ordre public) of the enforcing forum will not be recognized and enforced.
Enforcement of foreign judgments under the statutory regime is by registration. The regime however applies to specified courts in countries designated on the basis of →reciprocity. To date, the following countries and courts are designated: →Brazil (Supreme Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal, State High Court); →France (Cour de cassation, Cours d’appel); →Israel (Supreme Court); →Italy (Corte d’appello, Corte Suprema di Cassazione); →Japan (Supreme Court of Japan); →Lebanon (Court of Appeal, High Court); Senegal (Cours Suprême, Cours d’appel); →Spain (Tribunal Supremo, Audiencia Territorial, Juez de Primera Instancia); the United Arab Republic (Court of Cessation, Court of Appeal); the →United Kingdom (High Court of England, High Court of Northern Ireland, Court of Session in Scotland); and any court to which an appeal lies from any of the foregoing courts. The judgment from these courts must be final and conclusive between the parties. The judgment must decree that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff a certain amount of money; however, the amount payable cannot be in the form of a tax or other charge of a similar nature or a fine or penalty. A judgment is final, notwithstanding that an appeal is pending or that a possibility exists in law for an appeal. A foreign non-money judgment, such as an →injunction or an order for specific performance, cannot be enforced under the statutory regime. Similarly, a judgment that emanates from a country that has not been designated by the president cannot be enforced under the statutory regime, but it can be enforced under the common law regime. Under the law, where the sum payable under a judgment that is to be registered is expressed in a foreign currency, the judgment will be registered as if it was a judgment for a sum in Cedis, based on the bank exchange rate prevailing on the date of the judgment of the original court.
There are mandatory and discretionary grounds under which the registration of a foreign judgment can be set aside. With regard to the mandatory grounds, it is provided that the registration will be set aside if the court is satisfied that the judgment is outside the scope of the Courts Act; the foreign court had no jurisdiction in the case; the judgment debtor, being the defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court, did not receive notice of these proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to defend the proceedings (notwithstanding that process might have been duly served on him in accordance with the law of the country of the original court) and did not appear; the judgment was obtained by fraud; or enforcement of the judgment would be contrary to Ghana’s public policy. As regards the discretionary grounds registration may be set aside if the court is satisfied that the matter in dispute in the proceedings in the original court had, prior to the date of the judgment in the original court, been the subject of a final and conclusive judgment by another court that had jurisdiction in the matter. Registration of a foreign judgment can p. 1also be set aside if the court is satisfied that an appeal is pending or that the judgment debtor is entitled and intends to appeal.
In Ghana, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010 and the common law regulate the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards, but there are a few decided cases. At common law, the conditions for the enforcement of a foreign arbitration award are as follows: The parties submitted to arbitration, the arbitration was conducted in accordance with the submission, and the award is final and valid by the law of the country in which it was made.
Ghana is a party to the New York Convention. An award made under the New York Convention is enforceable under section 59(1)(c) of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010. In addition to awards made under the New York Convention, section 59 gives the High Court jurisdiction to enforce awards ‘made by a competent authority under the laws of the country in which the award was made’ and awards made in a country with which Ghana has a ‘reciprocal arrangement’. An award is enforceable in Ghana if, at the time of the application to enforce it, the state in which it was made had in fact become a reciprocating state. It is immaterial that, at the time the award was made, that state was not a reciprocating state.
From the above, it can be seen that there are three categories of foreign arbitral awards that can be enforced in Ghana. These are New York Convention awards, awards from reciprocating states and awards made by a competent authority under the laws of the country in which it was made. Regardless of the type of award, the party who seeks to enforce an award must produce the original or an authenticated copy of the award and the agreement pursuant to which the award was made. Where any of these documents is not in English, a certified true translation has to be presented to the court. Also, the High Court must be satisfied that there is no appeal pending against the award in any court under the law applicable to the arbitration.
The High Court shall not enforce a foreign arbitral award if: the award has been annulled in the country in which it was made; the party against whom the award is invoked was not given sufficient notice to enable the party present his case; a party, lacking legal capacity, was not properly represented; the award does not deal with the issues submitted to arbitration; or the award contains a decision beyond the scope of the matters submitted for arbitration. These grounds apply regardless of the type of award which enforcement is contested. An action to enforce an arbitration award shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action arose.
Ghana is party to the ICSID Convention (Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States of 18 March 1965, 575 UNTS 159). The Convention enjoins each contracting state to take such legislative or other measures as might be necessary for making the provisions of the Convention effective in its territories, but there is no legislation in Ghana that implements the Convention. To date, there has not been a reported case of an attempt to enforce an ICSID award in Ghana, including in cases where Ghana was the respondent in the ISCID proceeding.
R E Bannermah, ‘Award of Damages in Foreign Currency: A Critical Look at the Judgments’ (1993–1995) 19 Review of Ghana Law 231;
Kwamena Bentsi-Enchill, ‘Choice of Law in Ghana since 1960’ (1971) 8 U Ghana LJ 59;
Samuel Kofi Date-Bah, ‘The New Courts Act and Choice of Law in Tort Cases’ (1971) 3 Review of Ghana Law 238;
Samuel Kofi Date-Bah, ‘The Law Applicable to Tort Suits between Ghanaians whose Personal Law Is Customary Law’ (1973) 5 Review of Ghana Law 138;
Samuel Kofi Date-Bah, ‘United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 1980: Overview and Selective Commentary’ (1979) 11 Review of Ghana Law 50;
T G Kane, ‘Divorce Jurisdiction – What Basis’ (1969) 1 Review of Ghana Law 235;
Kofi Mbiah, ‘The Hague Rules v the Hamburg Rules: A Time for Needed Change in Ghanaian Law on the Carriage of Goods by Sea’ (1993–1995) 19 Review of Ghana Law 201;
Richard Frimpong Oppong, Private International Law in Commonwealth Africa (CUP 2013);
Richard Frimpong Oppong, ‘Ghana’ in Bea Verschraegen (eds) International Encyclopaedia of Laws: Private International Law (Kluwer Law International 2010 and updated biennially);
Richard Frimpong Oppong, Private International Law in Ghana (Kluwer Law International 2012);
Richard Frimpong Oppong, ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Ghana: A Second Look at a Colonial Inheritance’ (2006) 31:4 Commonwealth Law Bulletin 19;
Richard Frimpong Oppong, p. 1‘Private International Law in Africa: Past, Present and Future’ (2007) 55 Am.J.Comp.L. 677;
Richard Frimpong Oppong, ‘Ghana’ in Diego P. Fernandez Arroyo (ed), Consumer Protection in International Private Relationships (Center for the Studies of Law, Economy and Politics 2010) 233;
G F A Sawyerr, ‘The “Choice of Law” Approach and the Application of Law in Ghana’ (1972) 9 U Ghana LJ 173;
S Azadon Tiewul, ‘The Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements and Awards’ (1974) 11 U Ghana LJ 143;
Fui Tsikata, ‘Proving Familiar Foreign Law’ (1987–1988) 16 Review of Ghana Law 249;
Fui Tsikata, ‘Actions in Respect of Foreign Currency Obligations’ (1987–1988) 16 Review of Ghana Law 234;
Gordon Woodman, ‘Whittaker v Choiteram: Choice of Law in Cases Concerning the Rights of Children to Be Maintained from the Estate of their Deceased Fathers’ (1972) 9 U Ghana LJ 195;
Gordon Woodman, ‘The Law Applicable to Tort Suits between Ghanaians Whose Personal Law Is Customary Law’ (1973) 5 Review of Ghana Law 144;
Gordon Woodman, ‘Youhana v Abboud: Choice of Law for Inheritance on Intestacy, and the Application of the Common Law’ (1974) 11 U Ghana LJ 97.