Proxy Marriages Under Scrutiny: Why UKVI's Refusals Don't Hold Up in Law

As an Immigration Practitioner, I have been observing with growing concern a pattern of refusal decisions issued by the Home Office regarding Ghanaian proxy marriages. Caseworkers are routinely refusing visa applications on the basis that the couple was not physically present at the marriage ceremony, deeming such marriages "invalid" under UK law. But is this position legally sound? The short answer is no.

Understanding the Home Office's Position

The UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) position appears to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of Ghanaian customary marriage law. Caseworkers frequently refuse applications where the marriage was conducted by proxy—meaning one or both parties were not physically present at the ceremony—asserting that such marriages are not recognised under UK law and are therefore invalid for immigration purposes.

This approach, however, ignores a crucial principle of private international law: the validity of a marriage is generally determined by the law of the place where it was celebrated—known as the lex loci celebrationis.

Ghanaian Customary Law: The Asumah v Khar Foundation

Under Ghanaian customary law, proxy marriages are not merely tolerated; they are explicitly recognised as valid. The leading authority on this point remains the Court of Appeal decision in Asumah v Khar [1959] GLR 353 .

In that landmark case, the Ghanaian Court of Appeal (Ollennu J presiding) articulated the essentials of a valid customary marriage with remarkable clarity. Drawing upon Sarbah's Fanti Customary Law, the court quoted the principles laid down by the Chiefs to D.P. Chalmers, the Judicial Assessor in Panin v Duncan (1869):

"When a man intends to have a certain woman for his wife, he applies to her family, asks her to be given in marriage, by taking to the family, according to his means two flasks of rum, or two ackirs of gold dust (9/-) or 4 or 6 ackirs according to his means. Upon this, if the family approve, they agree to give the woman. This request and the consent with the first present alone make a valid marriage" .

Crucially, the court went on to explain that there are "other forms of valid marriage"—including circumstances where pregnancy occurs, the man admits liability, and sends drink or a present to the family. By custom, the sending of such additional drink or present "amounts to a request by the man for the hand of the girl, and the acceptance of that additional drink or present amounts to consent by the family" .

Nowhere in this formulation is physical presence of the parties at a single ceremony required. The essence of customary marriage is the exchange of consents between families, formalised through the payment of customary fees and presentation of drinks or gifts. Physical attendance at a simultaneous ceremony is not a prerequisite .

The Evolution of UK Jurisprudence: From Kareem to Awuku

The UK courts have grappled with the recognition of proxy marriages, and the legal position has evolved significantly.

The Kareem Detour

In Kareem (Proxy marriages – EU law) [2014] UKUT 24, the Upper Tribunal took a restrictive approach, holding that the validity of a marriage for EEA purposes had to be examined by reference to the law of the EU national's Member State of nationality . This created a difficult position for many couples, requiring them to satisfy not only the law of the place of celebration but also the national law of the sponsor.

As immigration barrister Colin Yeo observed, the Upper Tribunal in Kareem effectively disregarded established private international law principles. The tribunal failed to consult leading authorities such as Dicey on Conflict of Laws or relevant case law, instead crafting what appeared to be an entirely novel legal rule with little consideration for the serious consequences this would have on the personal status of those affected .

The Awuku Correction

Thankfully, the Court of Appeal corrected this error in Awuku v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 178 .

In Awuku, neither the Ghanaian appellant nor his German bride were present at their customary marriage ceremony in Ghana in February 2013. The then Home Secretary refused his residency application, disputing the validity of the marriage. However, the Court of Appeal firmly rejected the Home Office's position.

Lord Justice Lloyd Jones delivered the leading judgment, holding that "the law of England and Wales recognises proxy marriage if valid by the lex loci celebrationis" —the law of the place where the marriage was contracted . The court found that EU law did not require a different approach and that recognition of marriages remains a matter for the domestic law of Member States.

The consequences were clear: a spouse of an EU national who has concluded a valid proxy marriage under Ghanaian law qualifies as a family member . The Awuku decision effectively overruled Kareem and restored the proper application of private international law principles .

The Owusu Application

The Upper Tribunal promptly applied Awuku in Owusu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] (Unreported Judgement - Appeal Numbers: EA/03841/2015). In that case, the Home Office conceded—correctly—that the First-tier Tribunal was entitled to accept that the marriage was valid under Ghanaian law, and that there was no requirement to consider Dutch law (the sponsor's nationality) in light of Awuku . The appeal was allowed.

Recent Developments: The Registration Question

A more recent Upper Tribunal decision from February 2025, Elizabeth Owusu v Secretry of State for The Home Department (Unreported case UI-2024-005410) has further clarified the position regarding registration of customary marriages. In that case, the Tribunal addressed whether a customary marriage contracted on 19 December 2020 but registered on 7 May 2021 was valid from the earlier date .

The Home Office had argued that registration was essential for legal recognition. The Upper Tribunal rejected this, holding that the Ghana Marriage Act 1985 uses permissive language ("may" register) rather than mandatory language, indicating registration is not a prerequisite for validity . The court drew an analogy to birth registration: the date of birth is not affected by the date of registration, and similarly, criminal sanctions for failure to register do not affect substantive validity .

Why UKVI's Position Is Wrong

In my opinion, the Home Office's continued refusal of proxy marriage cases is legally unsustainable for several reasons:

Misapplication of UK law: UK courts have consistently recognised that marriages valid under the lex loci celebrationis should be recognised in England and Wales, subject to public policy exceptions .

Ignorance of Ghanaian law: Ghanaian customary law, as confirmed in Asumah v Khar, does not require physical presence for a valid marriage. The essence is family consent and exchange of customary items .

Failure to follow binding authority: The Court of Appeal's decision in Awuku is binding on the Home Office and on tribunals. Refusals that ignore this authority are vulnerable to appeal .

Confusion between validity and registration: As the 2025 Upper Tribunal decision confirms, registration is an administrative requirement, not a condition of validity .

Practical Guidance for Applicants

Despite my confidence that the Home Office's position is wrong, applicants must navigate the system strategically. Here is my practical advice:

First, ensure proper documentation. While registration may not affect validity, a registered customary marriage certificate issued by a competent authority in Ghana provides strong prima facie evidence of the marriage .

Second, document the customary ceremony. Witness statements from family members who attended the customary rites, photographs, and evidence of the exchange of drinks and gifts can all substantiate the marriage.

Third, seek registration promptly. The Ghanaian Marriage Laws encourage registration, and doing so avoids arguments about timing .

Fourth, be prepared to appeal. If the Home Office refuses your application based solely on the proxy nature of the marriage, you have strong grounds for appeal. The legal authorities are on your side.

Conclusion

The Home Office's refusal of proxy marriage cases reflects a misunderstanding of both Ghanaian customary law and UK private international law. The Ghanaian courts in Asumah v Khar established that physical presence is not essential to a valid customary marriage. The UK Court of Appeal in Awuku confirmed that such marriages, if valid under Ghanaian law, must be recognised in the UK.

While caseworkers continue to get this wrong—and applicants continue to suffer delays and refusals—the courts have consistently corrected these errors. A properly documented proxy marriage, valid under Ghanaian customary law, should succeed on appeal.

If you have received a refusal based on the proxy nature of your Ghanaian marriage, do not despair. The law is on your side. With proper representation and evidence, the decision is unlikely to stand up in court.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have received a refusal based on a proxy marriage, you should seek professional advice tailored to your specific circumstances.