Abstract
In international commercial transactions, parties often include a jurisdiction clause in their contracts, specifying which court should resolve any disputes that arise. This practice brings certainty, predictability and reduces the risks of parallel litigation, conflicting judgments, and additional expenses. Jurisdiction agreements can be exclusive, non-exclusive, or asymmetrical. The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements is the international convention that governs these clauses. It aims to ensure the efficacy of exclusive jurisdiction agreements and manage parallel proceedings in different countries. Although several countries have adopted the convention, no African country has acceded to it, including Ghana. In Ghana, issues with jurisdiction clauses typically arise when a lawsuit is filed in a court different from the one designated in the contract, leading to objections and requests to move the case to the designated jurisdiction. This article examines how Ghana’s courts enforce these agreements, highlighting that there is no consistent approach. This undermines legal certainty and predictability. The article argues that Ghanaian courts should prioritize upholding the parties’ negotiated agreements, only limiting their choice in rare cases for justice. A lack of consistent enforcement could discourage foreign investment and cross-border trade. The paper advocates for a uniform judicial approach to forum selection clauses and recommends that Ghana accede to the Hague Convention to enhance legal certainty and attract foreign investors.