¹ [1969]J.A.L.64 ff.

² For the text of Sir Frederic Rogers's letter which formulated the basic principles of colonial marriage policy, see ibid. 70–73.

³ [1969] J.A.L. 158.

⁴ See Appendix 1 below. The reader may find it helpful to look at this appendix before perusing the rest of this article.

⁵ No. 14 of 1884.

⁶ See Morris below.

⁷ Below, p. 33, n. 3.

⁸ [1969] J.A.L. 169 and n. 4.

^{page 11 note 1} Enclosure 1 in no. 1, Confidential Print: Correspondence on Gold Coast Marriage Law, CO 879/20. (Grateful acknowledgement is made for the use herein of material from the Colonial Office series in the Public Records Office, London). Charles (later Sir Charles) Lees, was lieutenant-governor, Gold Coast Colony and administrator, Lagos, 1874–9; several times administered the general government in the absence of the governor. Subsequently Governor of Bahamas (1881) and Barbados (1885).

^{page 11 note 2} [1969] J.A.L. 64–5.

^{page 11 note 3} Thomas W. Jackson, magistrate, The Gambia, 1869, puisne judge, Gold Coast, 1876.

^{page 11 note 4} November, 1878, No. 1; CO 879/20.

^{page 11 note 5} Chalmers was Queen's Advocate, Sierra Leone, 1872; Queen's Advocate, Gold Coast, 1874; he was knighted for his legal work in the latter post relating to the setting up of the Gold Coast colony; Chief Justice of the Gold Coast, 1876, Chief Justice of British Guiana, 1878.

^{page 11 note 6} Jackson to Lees, n.d. enclosure 2 in No. 1, CO 879/20; Chalmers to CO, 5 December, 1878, No. 3, ibid.

^{page 11 note 7} See appendix 2, p. 36 below.

^{page 11 note 8} Rowe to Colonial Office, 13 and 23 May, 1882 CO 879/20 No. 8 and 9. Sir Samuel Rowe had come to West Africa as a medical officer, and had served in that capacity in the third Ashanti war 1873–4; Governor of Gold Coast, 1881–4; Governor of Sierra Leone, 1884.

^{page 12 note 1} Sir James Marshall was puisne judge, Gold Coast, 1876; Chief Justice, 1879–1882.

^{page 12 note 2} Marshall to Colonial Office, 6 July, 1882, No. 12 CO 879/20.

^{page 12 note 3} Moloney (O.A.G. Gold Coast) to Colonial Office, 18 September, 1882, No. 18, ibid.

^{page 12 note 4} Jackson to Lees, 11 February, 1879, encl. No. 5, ibid.

^{page 12 note 5} Section 14 of the draft, encl. No. 6, ibid.

^{page 12 note 6} Colonial Office to Rowe, 22 March, 1883, No. 19 CO 879/20.

^{page 13 note 1} This issue was vigorously contested by the Catholics, in Ceylon, see [1969] J.A.L. 168.

^{page 13 note 2} Rowe to Colonial Office, 29 March, 1884, No. 24 CO 879/20 and encl. No. 1 ibid.

^{page 13 note 3} Colonial Office to Young, 5 September, 1884, No. 26, ibid. After administrative experience in the West Indies, Young took over as Governor in Accra in March, 1884. After a short illness, he died in post, April, 1885.

^{page 13 note 4} Young to Colonial Office, 18 December, 1884, CO 879/20, No. 27; Evans (O.A.G.) to Colonial Office, 21 April, 1885, No. 29, ibid.

^{page 13 note 5} Colonial Office to W. Brandford Griffith, Lieut. Governor, Gold Coast, 5 June, 1885, CO 879/20, No. 30. See below for further discussion of the succession question.

^{page 14 note 1} The founders of sociology and anthropology regarded African custom and practice as low on the evolutionary scale. This is evidenced by such sociological theories as racial determinism and the ethnographic basis of the comparative method of evolutionism: see generally M. Harris, The Rise of Anthropological Theory, 1968.

^{page 14 note 2} See Morris, below.

^{page 14 note 3} Colonial Office to Rowe, 22 March, 1883 CO 879/20 No. 19; Rowe to Colonial Office, 29 March, 1884, loc cit.

^{page 14 note 4} Rev. Lonape to Lieut. Governor, Lagos, 26 March, 1879 encl. 8 No. 18, ibid.

^{page 14 note 5} Marshall to Lieut. Governor, Lagos, 19 April, 1879, ibid.

^{page 15 note 1} Colonial Office to Rowe, 22 March, 1883, loc. cit. Rowe to Colonial Office, 29 March‘ 1884, loc. cit.

^{page 15 note 2} E. Cotran, Restatement of African Law, Kenya, Volume 1, 1964

^{page 15 note 3} [1969] J.A.L. 174–5.

^{page 15 note 4} Rev. Parker, Sup. Wesleyan Missionary Societies to D.C., Elmina, 24 May, 1879, CO 879/20 encl. 10 No. 18.

^{page 15 note 5} Colonial Office to Rowe, 22 March 1883, loc. cit. Rowe to Colonial Office 29 March, 1884, loc. cit. The correspondence does not make clear the reasons for the addition of “niece”. Marriage with a deceased wife's sister and niece was legalized in England by 8 Ed. 7 c. 47.

^{page 15 note 6} See above, p. 10.

^{page 16 note 1} Marshall to Colonial Office, 6 July, 1882, loc. cit.

^{page 16 note 2} Rowe (in London) to Colonial Office, 31 July, 1882, CO 879/20 No. 16.

^{page 16 note 3} Section 19 provided:

Nothing in this Ordinance shall deprive the Supreme Court of the right to observe and enforce the observance, or shall deprive any person of the benefit, of any law or custom existing in the Colony, such law or custom not being repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience, nor incompatible either directly or by necessary implication with any enactment of the Colonial Legislature existing at the commencement of this Ordinance, or which may afterwards come into operation. Such laws and customs shall be deemed applicable in causes and matters where the parties thereto are natives of the Colony, and particularly, but without derogating from their application in other cases, in causes and matters relating to marriage and to the tenure and transfer of real and personal property, and to inheritance and testamentary dispositions, and also in causes and matters between natives and Europeans where it may appear to the Court that substantial injustice would be done to either party by a strict adherence to the rules of English law. No party shall be entitled to claim the benefit of any local law or custom, if it shall appear from express contract or from the nature of the transactions out of which any suit or question may have arisen, that such party agreed that his obligations in connection with such transactions should be regulated exclusively by English law: and in cases where no express rule is applicable to any matter in controversy, the Court shall be governed by the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.”

^{page 16 note 4} Young to Colonial Office, 17 May, 1884, CO 879/20 No. 25.

^{page 17 note 1} Colonial Office to Rowe, 22 March, 1883, loc. cit.

^{page 17 note 2} Hyde v. Hyde, (1866) L.R. 1 P. & D. 130. This case involved a husband's uncontested petition for divorce on grounds of his wife's adultery. The petitioner, a convert to the Mormon Church, left his native England in 1853 and journeyed to Utah where he was married. Three years later he was excommunicated from the Mormon Church and his wife was declared free to marry again, which she did in 1859 or 1860. Upon returning to England, petitioner commenced his suit for divorce. Lord Penzance refused to adjudicate, holding that English matrimonial law was inapplicable to a Mormon marriage because the Mormon marriage law was polygamous. Although several reasons were given for refusing to adjudicate a case in which the husband had actually married several wives, Lord Penzance gave no reason for his refusal to do so when the husband had married only once, as was the case with the petitioner. His decision thus indicated that no distinction could be drawn between the first marriage of a polygamist and subsequent marriages.

^{page 17 note 3} See The Queen v. Sarwan Singh [1962] 3 All E.R. 612 (any polygamous or potentially polygamous marriage cannot afford a foundation for the prosecution of bigamy): Asiata v. Goncallo (1900) 1 N.L.R. 41 (Christian marriage in Brazil between two Muslim natives was no bar to subsequent marriage to another woman in Africa by Mohammedan rites.)

^{page 17 note 4} “The Common Law, the doctrines of equity, and the statutes of general application which were in force, in England at the date when the Colony obtained a local legislature, that is to say on the 24th of July, 1874, shall be in force within the jurisdiction of the Court.”

^{page 17 note 5} For precedents for the recognition of a change of personal law through religious conversion or change in domicile, see Ali v. Ali, [1966] 2 W.L.R. 620 (change in domicile); Attorney-General of Ceylon v. Reid, [1965] A.C 720 (P.C.) (conversion to Islam).

^{page 17 note 6} Encl. 1 in No. 24, CO 879/20.

^{page 18 note 1} End. in No. 26 and encl. 1 in No. 27, ibid.

^{page 18 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 18 note 3} Young to Colonial Office, 17 May, 1884, loc. cit.

^{page 18 note 4} Colonial Office to Young, 5 September, 1884, CO 879/20, No. 26.

^{page 18 note 5} Encl. 1 in No. 24, ibid.

^{page 18 note 6} No. 27, ibid.

^{page 18 note 7} Cap. 115, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos, 1958 Revision.

^{page 18 note 8} 1963 N.N.L.R. 54.

^{page 19 note 1} Attorney-General of Ceylon v. Reid [1965] A.C. 720 (P.C.).

^{page 19 note 2} Islamic Law is treated as custom in Nigeria. Anderson, J. N. D., Islamic Law in Africa 1954, 171; Keay and Richardson, Native and Customary Courts of Nigeria, 1966, 54.

^{page 19 note 3} Marasinghe, “Monogamy, polygamy and bigamy”, (1968) 2 Journal of Islamic Comparative Law 54.

^{page 19 note 4} Colonial Office to Rowe, 22 March, 1883, loc. cit., encl. 1 in No. 24, encl. in 26, ibid.

^{page 19 note 5} Section 29 of No. 14 of 1884.

^{page 20 note 1} See above, p. 13, n. 4.

^{page 20 note 2} Encl. 3 in No. 29, CO 879/20.

^{page 20 note 3} S. 23 of No. 14 of 1884; No. 27 CO 879/20.

^{page 20 note 4} Zabel, “Hyde v. Hyde in Africa”, 1969 Utah L. Rev. 35–8; Ezeani, “Legal Effects of Religious Marriages”, (1964) Nigerian Law Journal 227.

^{page 20 note 5} S. 35 of No. 14 of 1884; for earlier provisions, see [1969] J.A.L. 170–172.

^{page 21 note 1} Encl. 2 in No. 29, CO 879/20.

^{page 21 note 2} Irish Brothers with twenty years missionary experience in Northern Nigeria reported this to this author privately. This also was the view of the African students who discussed the matter with the author in her Family Law course and elsewhere.

^{page 21 note 3} The following is typical of African opinion. Aguda, The Marriage Laws of Nigeria, 1966, 37 (pamphlet). “…that the vast majority of Nigerian men, maybe the percentage is over 95, practice polygamy in one form or the other. A number of these ostensibly practice monogamy but have one or two other “wives”. But, some in fact do perform these ceremonies to which they in fact invite people who have to do with the administration of justice including Police Officers, Doctors, Lawyers, Ministers of State and Religion, top civil servants, etc. who do attend such ceremonies with full knowledge of the correct situation. The fact is that, as I have said earlier, some of these people themselves have perhaps indulged in a similar breach of the law. Yet, in my experience of over thirteen years at the Bar, sometimes as defence counsel and at other times as prosecuting counsel, I have not come across a single case of prosecution for any of the offences under the Marriage Act which I have referred to earlier. I should also add that since 1863 there have been only about two or so reported cases of bigamy in this country. Then, one begins to wonder if we should not now abolish these offences.”

^{page 21 note 4} Generally known as s. 36 of the Marriage Ordinance, originally s. 41 of No. 14 of 1884, Gold Coast Marriage Ordinance, Encl. 1 in No. 27, CO 879/20.

^{page 21 note 5} Encl. in No. 9, ibid.

^{page 21 note 6} See above, p. 16.

^{page 22 note 1} Marshall to Colonial Office, 6 July, 1882, p. 12 n. 2.

^{page 22 note 2} Encl. 2 in Evans to Colonial Office, 21 April, 1885, loc. cit.

^{page 22 note 3} Rowe to Colonial Office, 31 July, 1882, loc. cit.

^{page 23 note 1} Moloney to Colonial Office, 18 September, 1882, No. 18 CO 879/20.

^{page 23 note 2} Unfortunately, modern response has too frequently been a mere echo of current English law. See for example, Report of Commission on the Law of Marriage and Divorce in Kenya, wherein almost every issue is resolved in favour of following English rule. See also, Nigerian Matrimonial Causes Decree of 1970 discussed in Zabel, “Comparative study of the law of marriage in the Sudan and Nigeria”, 1970 Utah L. Rev. 541. The decree is almost an exact replica of the English Divorce Reform Act of 1969.

^{page 23 note 3} Jackson to Lees, 11 February, 1879, loc. cit. It will be recalled that Jackson had charatcerised the term “native marriage” as “vicious”.

^{page 24 note 1} Rev. Parker to D.C., Elmina, 24. May, 1879, loc. cit.

^{page 24 note 2} See, for example, Aguda, The Marriage Laws of Nigeria, 1966, 38 (pamphlet); Ayera, Let There Be One Marriage Law in Nigeria, Morning Post, June 16, 1970 at 1.

^{page 24 note 3} Bailey to Moloney, 29 August, 1882, encl. 15 in No. 18. loc. cit.

^{page 24 note 4} Section 41 of No. 14 of 1884, below.

^{page 24 note 5} Colonial Office to Rowe, 22 March, 1883, loc. cit.; s. 42 of Quayle Jones draft, s. 41 of amended Quayle Jones draft.

^{page 25 note 1} P. 13, n. 4.

^{page 25 note 2} Encl. 2 in Evans to Colonial Office, 21 April, 1885, loc. cit.

^{page 25 note 3} Quayle Jones to Young, 28 March, 1885, encl. 3, ibid.

^{page 26 note 1} Evans to Colonial Office, 21 April, 1885, ibid. The Governor, William Young, died three days after this letter was written.

^{page 26 note 2} P. 13 above.

^{page 26 note 3} Radcliffe-Brown, “Introduction”, in African Systems of Kinship and Marriage (A. Radcliffe-Brown and D. Forde eds.), 1950, 1–85; B. Malinowski, Sex, Culture, and Myth, 1962, 150–64.

^{page 26 note 4} Radcliffe-Brown, op. cit., at 84: “In the past the stability of social order in African societies has depended much more on the kinship system than anything else…

The process of change is inevitable. To a very limited extent it can be controlled by the colonial administration, and it is obvious that the effectiveness of any action taken by an administration is dependent on the knowledge they have at their disposal about the native society, its structure and institutions, and what is happening to it at the present time. The wise anthropologist will not try to tell an administrator what he ought to do; it is his special task to provide the scientifically collected and analysed knowledge the administrator can use if he likes.”

^{page 26 note 5} (1898) 1 N.L.R. 15.

^{page 26 note 6} By then, the judiciary included the full courts of the Gold Coast Colony, the Colony of Lagos, and Southern Nigeria. The Marriage Ordinance was inapplicable because the intestate had married in Sierra Leone before the Ordinance became law.

^{page 27 note 1} Supreme Court Ordinance, s. 19, see above p. 16, n. 3.

^{page 27 note 2} Minutes of Legislative Council of Lagos, 1886, C.O. 149.

^{page 27 note 3} May 28. 1900, C.O. 520/2.

^{page 27 note 4} Telegram May 29, 1900, despatch June 12, 1900 ibid. Proclamation No. 20, Laws of Northern Nigeria (1900).

^{page 27 note 5} March 15, 1902, C.O. 520/13.

^{page 27 note 6} Cap. 47, Laws of the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria, 1910 Revision. The succession provision did not fare well in the Gold Coast either. In 1909, it was amended to apply to only two-thirds of the estate: see pp. 40–2 below.

^{page 27 note 7} Cap. 115, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos, 1958 Revision. As succession became a regional (now state) matter, “the Colony” should probably be construed now as referring to the Federal Territory only: B. Harvey, Law and Practice of Nigerian Wills, Probate and Succession, 1968, 157; A. Kasunmu and J. Salacuse, Nigerian Family Law, 1966, 264.

^{page 28 note 1} For conflicting official views concerning the position in the North and South after 1914, see H. F. Morris, “Attitudes towards succession law in Nigeria during the colonial period”, [1970] J.A.L. 5–16.

^{page 28 note 2} Applicable to States within the former Western and Mid-Western Regions, the law is based on the U.K. Administration of Estates Act of 1925, as amended in 1952, and applies to Nigerians, dying domiciled in or leaving immovables in the Regions, who marry monogamously outside Nigeria or who marry under the Marriage Act, and are survived by husband, wife, or issue. Harvey, op. cit. at 2.

^{page 28 note 3} The former regions have been subdivided into states. Succession since 1963 has been within the exclusive legislative competence of Regions or States. A. Kasunmu and J. Salacuse, op. cit. at 2.

^{page 28 note 4} Administrator General v. Egbuna, (1945) 18 N.L.R. 1. But the doctrine was disapproved in Onwudinjoh v. Onwudinjoh, (1957) 2 E.N.L.R. 1 and the court based its decision on other grounds.

^{page 28 note 5} See Harvey, op. cit., 157; Kasunmu and Salacuse, op. cit., 269.

^{page 28 note 6} S. 36 applies to persons who marry under the Ordinance which they could, of course, do anywhere in Nigeria irrespective of domicile. To construe s. 36 as applicable only where the marriage was celebrated in Lagos, would produce inequality between Lagos domiciliaries depending on whether they marry at home or elsewhere, and would fly in the face of the language of s. 36.

^{page 28 note 7} An analogous problem would arise regarding those domiciled or leaving immovables elsewhere in Nigeria, if it is correct to conclude that limitation of s. 36 to the colony only abrogated the rule in Cole v. Cole for marriages under the Ordinance. If custom should, control those estates, it would be anomalous to continue to apply Cole v. Cole if the marriage were contracted abroad.

^{page 28 note 8} There are in fact some substantial differences between applying Cole v. Cole and s. 36, even though in both cases the reference is to English law. For a good comparison, see Kasunmu and Salacuse, op. cit., 272–74.

^{page 29 note 1} See, e.g., A. N. Allott, Essays in African Law, 1960,182–96; N.Okoro, The Customary Laws of Succession in Eastern Nigeria, 1966, 168–78; Kasunmu, “Intestate succession in Nigeria”, (1964) 1 Nigerian Law Journal, 50; Salacuse, “Birth, death and the Marriage Act”, (1964) 1 Nigerian Law Journal, 59.

^{page 29 note 2} In Adegbola v. Folaranmi, (1921) 3 N.L.R. 89, 92 the intestate's only child of a customary marriage was disinherited in favour of the wife of a subsequent Christian marriage contracted abroad. See also In re Somefun (1941) 7 West Afr. Gt. App. 156, 157; Gooding v. Martins, (1942) 8 West Afr. Ct. App. 108, 109.

^{page 29 note 3} Bamgbose v. Daniel, [1955] A.C. 107, (1954) 14 West Afr. Ct. App. 116; Coleman v. Shang, (1959) Ghana L.R. 390, [1961] A.C. 481.

^{page 29 note 4} There is no indication in the legislative history to indicate why it was thought appropriate to include the estates of issue of Ordinance marriages, who themselves might prefer custom, nor is it clear whether the term “issue” is confined to children of the Ordinance marriage to whose estates s. 36 has been applied, or whether it is used in a broader sense to include subsequent generations. In contrast, the doctrine of Cole v. Cole affects only the estate of the person who marries monogamously.

^{page 29 note 5} See Zabel, “Hyde v. Hyde in Africa,” 1969 Utah L. Rev. 46–48.

^{page 29 note 6} Craig v. Craig, (1964) Lagos High Ct. Rpts. 96; Coleman v. Shang, (1959) Ghana L.R. 390, [1961] A.C. 481. Onwudinjoh v. Onwudinjoh, (1957) 2 E.N.L.R. 1.

^{page 29 note 7} Alake v. Pratt, (1955) 15 West Afr. Ct. App. 20; Bamgbose v. Daniel, cited above.

^{page 29 note 8} (1960) 5 Fed. S. Ct. Nigeria 84. Cited and applied in In Re Macaulay, (1967) High Court of Lagos; Awosika v. Awosika, (1966) High Court of Western Nigeria, Ibadan; In re Olusola, (1966) High Court of Lagos. See further below, p. 31.

^{page 30 note 1} Re Anaman, Gold Coast, 1894, reported in J. Sarbah, Fanti Customary Laws, 1968, 221, Estate of Otoo, (1927) G.C.L.R. 1926–29, 84; see also Redwar's Comments on Gold Coast Ordinances, 1909:

“In other words, there is a plain indication of an intention to uphold and give effect to any ‘testamentary dispositions’ of individual property according to native custom, which would not require a will to be in writing or signed by the testator, when such native testator's status has not been altered by marriage under the Marriage Ordinance of 1884.” (emphasis supplied).

^{page 30 note 2} (1924) 5 N.L.R. 105, 107.

^{page 30 note 3} The eldest son was claiming the entire interest in the family home under the English law of succession against the other children and widow, all of whom were occuping the property. In a more recent unreported case, the court, faced with a similar situation, applied the doctrine of estoppel to avoid the operation of section 36 which would have given the successors in interest of the widow of an Ordinance marriage property against the claims of 16 illegitimate children: Ogunmodede v. Thomas, Supreme Court of Nigeria, Lagos (1966).

^{page 30 note 4} See, e.g. Northern Nigeria High Court Law, and Zabel “Hyde v. Hyde in Africa”, loc. cit., 22, 30.

^{page 30 note 5} 11 Laws of Northern Nigeria, s. 34 (4) provides for application of principles of justice, equity and good conscience when no express rule is applicable. This clause no longer appears in the Eastern High Court Law, which is an additional reason for doubting the continued validity of the doctrine in the Eastern States. See Zabel, “Hyde v. Hyde in Africa”, loc. cit., 22, 31 and 53.

^{page 31 note 1} Ibid., 46–9.

^{page 31 note 2} See, e.g., Coker v. Coker, (1943) 17 N.L.R. 55.

^{page 31 note 3} See N. Okoro, op. cit., 182–208. Discussions with students in Nigeria confirm the view that pressure to marry under the Ordinance originates from prospective brides and their families because it is more advantageous to wives. There is also a feeling today, at least among the elite, that an Ordinance celebration enhances social standing. See also official views quoted in Morris, loc. cit., 11–13.

^{page 32 note 1} Governor of Hong Kong since 1872: previously governor of Gambia, Sierra Leone and West African Settlements; subsequently governor of Queensland, 1877.

^{page 32 note 2} Kennedy to Colonial Office, 21 November 1873, CO 129/165.

^{page 32 note 3} Opinions by Pauncefote, dated 8 September, 1873, and 7 October, 1873, enclosed with Kennedy to C.O., ibid. Julian (later Lord) Pauncefote was establishing a reputation in Hong Kong (where he had been Attorney-General since 1865) leading to a knighthood in 1874; he prepared a Civil Procedure Code and many other important ordinances; his subsequent career was exceptionally distinguished and included appointments as Permanent Under-Secretary of State at die Foreign Office (1882) and Ambassador in Washington (1893).

^{page 32 note 4} (1858) vii H.L. Cas. 151, 11 E.R. 50 (The Attorney-General's citation is not legible).

^{page 32 note 5} For the difficulties encountered in Ceylon in respect to prescribing a form of celebration for all religious faiths, see my earlier article [1969] J.A.L. 158.

^{page 33 note 1} This phraseology appears in section 30 of No. 14 of 1875 and reappears in West African marriage laws.

^{page 33 note 2} (1844) 10 Q,. & Fin. 534. See [1969] J.A.L. 64–65. There was some language in Millis suggesting that after the reformation only Catholic priests who had recanted errors of popery could be considered as persons in Holy Orders (Lord Brougham at p. 729 and Lord Chancellor at p. 861).

^{page 33 note 3} The 1875 Ordinance only dealt with marriages where both parties were Christian (see s. 34). However marriages according to Chinese custom were recognised as valid, see e.g. Ngai Chung Shi and Ngai Ching Fat and Nagi Υee Mui (1927) 22 H.K.L.R. 105.

^{page 33 note 4} CO. to Kennedy, 20 January, 1874, CO 129/165.

^{page 33 note 5} Kennedy to C.O. 8 October, 1874, CO 882/3.

^{page 33 note 6} For this, see [1969] J.A.L. 172 ff.

^{page 33 note 7} Austin to C.O. 13 April, 1875, CO 882/3. John Gardiner Austin was colonial secretary’ Hong Kong, 1868–78, administering the government in 1874 and in 1875.

^{page 33 note 8} Austin to C.O. 21 April, 1875, CO 882/3.

^{page 34 note 1} C.O. to Austin, 4 July, 1875, ibid.

^{page 34 note 2} See s. 20 of No. 14 of 1875. Both Ceylon and Nigeria provided for judicial decision on entry of a caveat.

^{page 34 note 3} This was done—see s. 16 of No. 14 of 1875. The Nigerian Marriage Ordinance adopted the English equivalent—“of unsound mind”.

^{page 34 note 4} Catholic Mission House to Kennedy, 17 January, 1876, CO. 882/3; to Kennedy, 8 March, 1876, ibid.

^{page 34 note 5} S. 29 of No. 14 of 1875 (Hong Kong); s. 33 (3) of the Nigerian Marriage Ordinance.

^{page 34 note 6} S. 1 of No. 8 of 1865 (Ceylon).

^{page 34 note 7} S. 6 of No. 14 of 1875 cf. s. 4 of the Nigerian Ordinance.

^{page 34 note 8} S. 10 of No. 13 of 1863.

^{page 35 note 1} Ss. 12 and 14 of No. 14 of 1875.

^{page 35 note 2} S. 16 of No. 14 of 1875 cf. s. 18 of the Nigerian Marriage Ordinance. The special provision in Hong Kong for obtaining records of past marriages, which encountered Catholic opposition, was not imitated elsewhere.

^{page 35 note 3} See [1969] J.A.L. 69.