The law applicable to tortious liability: A comparative analysis of article 4 of the Rome II Regulation and private international law in Ghana
| Citation | (2023) 10(1) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 1 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v10/i1a1 |
| Published date | 11 September 2023 |
| Pages | 1-40 |
| Author | Quartey, M.K. |
| Date | 11 September 2023 |
1https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v10/i1a1
THE LAW APPLICABLE TO TORTIOUS
LIABILITY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
ARTICLE 4 OF THE ROME II REGULATION AND
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN GHANA*
Michael K Quartey**
Theophilus Edwin Coleman***
Abstract
The law applicable to tortious liability involving a foreign element has become one
of the most vexed questions in private international law. This can be attributed
to technological advancements and the movement of people and goods across state
lines. Accidents involving a foreign element are, therefore, reasonably foreseeable.
Torts such as online defamation, accidents involving self-driving vehicles, and other
technological acts involving a foreign element have heightened the possibility of
cross-border torts. Considering the complexities associated with cross-border torts,
the European Union (EU) has enacted the Rome II Regulation. The overarching
objective of enacting the Rome II Regulation is to promote certainty and
predictability when dealing with cross-border disputes, irrespective of the country
of the court in which an action is brought in the EU. Conversely, Ghana relies on
the broadly drafted section 54 of the Courts Act 459 of 1993 and common law
principles of private international law to determine the aspects of choice of law.
This has made the position in Ghana very uncertain and unpredictable due to the
broad discretion given to courts under section 54 of the Courts Act, particularly
in determining the law applicable to cross-border tort cases. Also, Ghanaian courts
have applied the much-criticised double actionability rule to determine the rights
and obligations of parties in cross-border tort cases. In light of the uncertain and
unpredictable nature of Ghanaian law, some academics have suggested that Ghana
adopt the traditional rule to determine the applicable law in torts. This article
seeks to critically analyse the applicability of article 4 of the Rome II Regulation
regarding non-contractual liabilities. The article compares how courts in EU member
states have applied article 4 to determine the applicable law in torts, to how the
* This article is based on the dissertation submitted by the first author in fulfilment of the
award of the LLM International Commercial Law degree at the University of Johannesburg, South
Africa. The second author was the supervisor. See, Quartey, Michael K, The Law Applicable to Tortious
Liability: A Comparative Analysis of Article 4 of the Rome II Regulations and Private International Law in
Ghana (unpublished LLM thesis, University of Johannesburg, 2022).
** BA LLB BL (Ghana) LLM (University of Johannesburg); Legal Associate: Ankomah Mensah
& Associates, Ghana. Email: micquarteyesq@gmail.com
*** BA LLB (Ghana) LLM LLD (University of Johannesburg); Senior Postdoctoral Research
Fellow, Centre for International and Comparative Labour and Social Security Law (CICLASS),
Faculty of Law, University of Johannesburg, South Africa; Research Associate, Research Centre
for Private International Law in Emerging Countries (RCPILEC), Faculty of Law, University of
Johannesburg, South Africa. Email: tecoleman@uj.ac.za / edwintheocoleman@gmail.com.
(2023) 10(1) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 1
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd
2 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW IN AFRICA VOL 10, NO 1, 2023
https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v10/i1a1
Ghanaian courts use private international law rules to determine the applicable
law in torts. The essence of the comparison is to ascertain whether Ghana can draw
some legislative and judicial lessons from the position under article 4. In addition,
the significance of the comparison is to determine whether the approach under
the Rome II Regulation can serve as a basis for legal reforms in Ghana. Most
importantly, the article explores the extent to which the legal approach under the
EU law can bolster judicial certainty and predictability in Ghanaian law.
Keywords: Non-contractual obligation; private international law; tortious
Regulation; European Union (EU); Courts Act 459 of 1993
Résumé
La loi applicable à la responsabilité délictuelle impliquant un élément d’extranéité
est devenue l’une des questions les plus épineuses du droit international privé.
Cela peut être attribué aux progrès technologiques et à la circulation des personnes
et des biens au-delà des frontières des États. Les accidents impliquant un élément
étranger sont, par conséquent, raisonnablement prévisibles. Les délits civils tels
que la diffamation en ligne, les accidents impliquant des véhicules à conduite
autonome et d’autres actes technologiques impliquant un élément étranger ont
renforcé la possibilité de délits civils transfrontaliers. Compte tenu des complexités
associées aux délits transfrontaliers, l’Union européenne (UE) a promulgué le
est de promouvoir la certitude et la prévisibilité dans le traitement des litiges
transfrontaliers, quel que soit le pays du tribunal devant lequel une action est
intentée dans l’UE. À l’inverse, le Ghana s’appuie sur la section 54 de la loi
459 de 1993 sur les tribunaux, rédigée en termes généraux, et sur les principes
de common law du droit international privé pour déterminer les aspects du choix
de la loi. Cela a rendu la position du Ghana très incertaine et imprévisible en
raison du large pouvoir discrétionnaire accordé aux tribunaux en vertu de l’article
54 de la loi sur les tribunaux, notamment pour déterminer la loi applicable aux
affaires de délits transfrontaliers. En outre, les tribunaux ghanéens ont appliqué
la règle très critiquée de la double action pour déterminer les droits et obligations
des parties dans les affaires de délits transfrontaliers. A la lumière de la nature
incertaine et imprévisible du droit ghanéen, certains universitaires ont suggéré que
le Ghana adopte la règle traditionnelle pour déterminer la loi applicable en matière
de délits civils. Cet article cherche à analyser de manière critique l’applicabilité de
L’article compare la manière dont les tribunaux des États membres de l’Union
applicable en matière de délits et la manière dont les tribunaux ghanéens utilisent
les règles duedroit international privé pour déterminer la loi applicable en matière
de délits. L’objectif de cette comparaison est de déterminer si le Ghana peut tirer des
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd
THE LAW APPLICABLE TO TORTIOUS LIABILITY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
LAW IN GHANA 3
https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v10/i1a1
En outre, l’importance de la comparaison est de déterminer si l’approche du
règlement Rome II peut servir de base à des réformes juridiques au Ghana. Plus
important encore, l’article explore la mesure dans laquelle l’approche juridique
du droit européen peut contribuer à insuffler un air de certitude et de prévisibilité
judiciaires dans le droit ghanéen.
Mots-clés: Obligation non contractuelle; droit international privé; responsabilité
délictuelle; lex loci delicti commissi; lex loci damni; délit transfrontalier; Règlement
Rome II; Union Européenne (UE); Loi 459 de 1993 sur les tribunaux
Introduction
The law governing tortious liability worldwide has developed significantly
since Ghana enacted the Civil Liability Act 176 of 1963, to reform
and regulate Ghana’s civil liability regime, particularly contributory
negligence and liability for fatal injuries, among other related matters.1
The advancements made in the domain of tort have made the choice of
law applicable to tortious liability of decisive importance, as the chosen
law may determine if a party succeeds or fails in their claim.2 While some
states have enacted legislation to cater for new areas of civil liability, such as
injury caused by self-driving cars3 and harm that occurs over the internet,4
others like Ghana still refer to the colonial common law principles on
tort.5 These developments, especially considering recent technological
advances, have made the choice of law governing tortious liabilities
a popular area in the study of private international law or conflict of
laws.6 Forsyth predicts that due to technological advancements and their
1 Civil Liability Act 176 of 1963.
2 Rober tson, A.H. ‘The choice of law for tort liability in the conflict of laws’ (1940) 4 Modern
LR 27–44 at 27–29; Delamater, John O. ‘A proposed step towards reasoned adjudication of torts
in the conflict of laws’ (1963) 12 Buffalo LR 359–69 at 359; Moreland, Roy M. ‘Conflict of laws –
Choice of law in torts – A critique’ (1967) 56 Kentucky LJ 5–26 at 6; Lown, Peter J.M. ‘The proper
law of torts in the conflict of laws’ (1974) 12 Alberta LR 101–52 at 101–102; Willis L M Reese
‘Choice of law in torts and contracts and directions for the future’ (1977) 16 Columbia Journal of
Transnational Law 1–44 at 1–5; Morse, C.G.J. ‘Choice of law in tort law: A comparative survey’ (1984)
32 Am J Comp L 51–97 at 51; Miller, L. ‘Choice of law approaches in tort actions’ (1993) 16 American
Journal of Trial Advocacy 858–882 at 859; Carter, P.B. ‘Choice of law in tort: The role of the lex fori’
(1995) 54 Cambridge LJ 38–42 at 38–39; Fawcett, J.J. Carruthers, J.M. & North, P.M. Cheshire, North
& Fawcett Private International Law 14 ed (2008) 765–766; Forsyth, C.F. Private International Law: The
Modern Roman-Dutch Law Including the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 5 ed (2012) 349.
3 Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 (United Kingdom). See also, Neels, J.L. &
Fredericks, E. ‘Liability arising from traffic accidents involving self-driving cars in private international
law’ (Faculty of Law of the University of Johannesburg Indaba, Johannesburg, 2019) 1–2.
4 Mullen, Mary ‘The internet and public policy: Cybertorts and online property rights’ 2018
Many House Research Department Publications 2–13 at 3.
5 See generally, Oppong, Richard Frimpong & Agyebeng, Kissi Conflict of Laws in Ghana (2021).
6 Kiggundu, John ‘Choice of law in delict: The rise and rise of lex loci delicti commissi’ (2006) 18
SA Merc LJ 97–106 at 97; Singh, Priya ‘Can an emoji be considered as defamation? A legal analysis
of Burrows v Houda [2020] NSWDC 485’ (2021) 24 PELJ 1–26 at 3.
© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial