Introduction
The concept of domicile plays a pivotal role in the field of conflict of laws, as it determines the legal system applicable to personal matters such as marriage, succession, and taxation. Domicile, unlike residence, is not merely a physical presence in a jurisdiction but reflects a person’s permanent home or the place with which they have the closest connection (Cheshire, North & Fawcett, 2017). This essay examines the domiciles of Mr. and Mrs. Antwi and their daughter, Akosua Serwaa Antwi, as they relocate across Ghana, England, and Sierra Leone over a span of several years. By tracing their movements and intentions through the lens of decided cases, this analysis aims to establish their domiciles at different points in time. The essay will first explore the domiciles of Mr. and Mrs. Antwi, followed by that of Akosua, considering legal principles such as domicile of origin, domicile of choice, and the impact of intention and residence. The discussion will draw on established case law to inform the analysis, highlighting the complexities of determining domicile in a transnational context.
Domicile of Mr. and Mrs. Antwi
Domicile is traditionally classified into three categories: domicile of origin, domicile of dependence, and domicile of choice. For Mr. and Mrs. Antwi, their initial domicile appears to be in Ghana, where they were domiciled at the time of Akosua’s birth in 1989. Under English law, which is influential in conflict of laws cases involving former British colonies like Ghana and Sierra Leone, the domicile of origin is the place where a person is born or, in some cases, the domicile of their parents at the time of birth (Udny v Udny, 1869). Given that Mr. and Mrs. Antwi were domiciled in Ghana in 1989, it is reasonable to assume that Ghana was their domicile of origin or, at the very least, their established domicile at that time.
In 1999, the family relocated to England due to Mr. Antwi’s pursuit of a doctorate degree. This move raises the question of whether they acquired a domicile of choice in England. According to legal principles, a domicile of choice is acquired through a combination of physical residence in a new jurisdiction and an intention to remain there indefinitely (Bell v Kennedy, 1868). However, their stay in England, which lasted until 2004, appears to have been purpose-driven and temporary, tied to the completion of Mr. Antwi’s studies. There is no indication in the facts provided that they intended to make England their permanent home during this period. As such, it is unlikely that they acquired a domicile of choice in England. Instead, their domicile likely remained in Ghana, in line with the principle that a domicile of origin persists unless clearly displaced by a new domicile of choice (Winans v Attorney-General, 1904).
Following their time in England, Mr. and Mrs. Antwi moved to Sierra Leone in 2004, where they built a successful business and acquired landed properties. Importantly, they maintained an intention to return to Ghana upon retirement or when they were no longer active. This expressed intention suggests that their domicile of origin in Ghana was not abandoned during their time in Sierra Leone. In the case of Ramsay v Liverpool Royal Infirmary (1930), it was established that a domicile of choice requires not only residence but also a clear intention to make a place one’s permanent home. The Antwis’ stated desire to return to Ghana indicates that Sierra Leone did not become their domicile of choice, despite their long-term residence and economic ties there. Therefore, their domicile likely remained in Ghana throughout this period.
Finally, upon hearing of a boom in the oil industry, Mr. and Mrs. Antwi returned to Ghana to settle there permanently. This move reinforces the argument that Ghana remained their domicile throughout their relocations, as their return aligns with their previously expressed intentions. Their domicile, therefore, is concluded to be Ghana from 1989 onwards, unaffected by their temporary residences in England and Sierra Leone.
Domicile of Akosua Serwaa Antwi
Akosua Serwaa Antwi’s domicile is more complex to trace due to her age during initial relocations and her subsequent personal choices. Born in 1989 in Ghana, where her parents were domiciled, Akosua’s domicile of origin is Ghana. Under traditional English law, a child’s domicile is typically dependent on that of their parents, specifically the father, during their minority (Re Beaumont, 1893). From 1989 to 1999, while the family remained in Ghana, Akosua’s domicile unequivocally aligned with that of her parents in Ghana. Upon the family’s relocation to England in 1999, and later to Sierra Leone in 2004, Akosua, still a minor, would have retained a domicile of dependence tied to her parents’ domicile, which, as argued earlier, remained in Ghana.
However, upon reaching the age of majority, traditionally 18 under English law, Akosua gained the capacity to establish her own domicile of choice (Cheshire, North & Fawcett, 2017). In 2009, at the age of 20, Akosua returned to England, married an Englishman, and settled there permanently. This act of returning to England, combined with her expressed intention—prior to turning 20—to make England her home one day, suggests the acquisition of a domicile of choice in England. The legal principle in Bell v Kennedy (1868) supports this conclusion, as her physical presence in England, coupled with her marriage to an Englishman and clear intent to settle, indicates a permanent connection to the jurisdiction.
It is worth noting that Akosua maintained contact with friends in England even while residing in Sierra Leone, further evidencing her affinity for England as her intended permanent home. Generally, a domicile of choice is not easily displaced unless there is evidence of a shift in intention and residence to another jurisdiction (Winans v Attorney-General, 1904). There is no indication in the facts that Akosua’s ties to England have weakened since 2009; therefore, her domicile remains in England from the age of 20 onwards. Indeed, her parents’ subsequent return to Ghana does not appear to influence her domicile, as she had already established an independent legal status by this time.
Conclusion
In summary, this analysis has traced the domiciles of Mr. and Mrs. Antwi and Akosua Serwaa Antwi through their various relocations, applying principles from conflict of laws and relevant case law. Mr. and Mrs. Antwi’s domicile remained in Ghana from 1989 onwards, as their stays in England and Sierra Leone, though significant, lacked the necessary intention to establish a domicile of choice. Their eventual return to Ghana aligns with their expressed long-term intent, reinforcing this conclusion. Akosua, on the other hand, initially shared her parents’ domicile in Ghana through dependence but acquired a domicile of choice in England upon turning 20 in 2009, driven by her marriage, settlement, and prior intention to make England her home. These determinations highlight the nuanced interplay of residence, intention, and personal circumstances in establishing domicile. The implications of such findings are significant in legal contexts, as domicile affects jurisdiction over personal matters, underscoring the importance of clear legal tests and evidence in transnational cases.
References
- Cheshire, G. C., North, P. M., & Fawcett, J. J. (2017) Private International Law. 15th ed. Oxford University Press.
- Bell v Kennedy (1868) LR 1 Sc & Div 307.
- Ramsay v Liverpool Royal Infirmary [1930] AC 588.
- Re Beaumont [1893] 3 Ch 490.
- Udny v Udny (1869) LR 1 Sc & Div 441.
- Winans v Attorney-General [1904] AC 287.
