One of the most unexplored areas of Ghanaian jurisprudence is the law on domicile and jurisdiction of companies, and essentially legal persons. The Court of Appeal in Sanyo Electric Trading v Quarcoopome was given the opportunity to state what the law is in relation to these matters. While the court may have seized this opportunity, the decision of the court still leaves important questions unanswered as well as issues that teases the mind of the reader. This paper argues that the court in the Quarcoopome case in setting out the factors for determining whether it had jurisdiction over the defendant focused solely on the domicile of the defendant company thereby ignoring other factors relevant for determining whether the defendant was subject to the used for determining jurisdiction and not applied as a choice of law rule. In doing this, the paper xplains that the domicile test set by the court in addition to other factors are relevant for determining the jurisdiction of companies and that the test, however is not to be applied as a choice of law rule.