JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.
The respondent, an Israeli national, is suing the applicant, a French firm, in this court for damages for breach of contract. The applicant company has raised the preliminary point that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and its objection to the court's jurisdiction is based on two main grounds: that the contract between the company and the respondent was couched in the French language and the salary of the respondent was payable in Paris in French francs. There is no doubt that the issue that calls for determination by this court raises a fundamental question of interest in private international law.
By consent an English translation of the contract of employment was put in evidence as exhibit A. It is to be observed at this stage that if the objection of the company proves to be well-founded, the jurisdiction of this court will be automatically ousted and the respondent will have to seek his remedies, if any, in the French courts which the company contends is the proper forum for the determination of the rights and obligations of the parties. Mr. E. K. Mensah, counsel for the applicant company, has argued with some force that this court must decline to exercise jurisdiction in this case. He contends that having regard to exhibit A the company was incorporated in Paris where alone there is the "directing power and control" and that it has no established place of business in Ghana and so a writ of summons cannot properly be served on it.
In short counsel is saying that the company is not amenable to this jurisdiction, and in coming to this conclusion he further submitted that the proper law of the contract was French law. It is to be observed that matters of jurisdiction and proper law of the contract are distinct legal concepts, though it is admitted that the proper law of the contract may in certain circumstances decide the jurisdictional aspect of a case of this nature. Having mentioned the proper law of the contract I feel compelled, without dwelling on any lengthy exposition of this juridical concept, to state that all that it means is the law of the [p.214] country with which factually the contract is most closely connected. This definition of "the proper law of contract" is accepted by the two great writers on the subject, namely, Cheshire in his Private International Law (7th ed.), and Dicey in his Conflict of Laws (7th ed.).
Miss Akua Asaabea Ayisi, counsel for the respondent, contends that this court
