² See post p. 39. This is the only African territory where the jury system, having been once introduced, has afterwards vanished altogether.

³ Order in Council of 9th August, 1866. (Hertslet's, Commercial Treaties, Vol. 12, P. 973.)Google Scholar

⁴ ib., ss. 4 and 14.

⁵ ib., s. 25.

⁶ Zanzibar Order in Council, 1884 (Hertslet, Vol. 17, p. 1093), s. 8 (b).

⁷ Zanzibar Order in Council, 1897 (S.R. & O., 1897, No. 576).

⁸ See Vaughan, J. H., The dual jurisdiction in Zanzibar (1935, Govt. Printer, Zanzibar), pp. 9–34.Google Scholar

⁹ See Kingdon, H. E., The Conflict of Laws in Zanzibar (1940, Govt. Printer, Zanzibar), at p. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 1} By s. 9.

^{page 37 note 2} Criminal Procedure Code, 1882, ss. 268 and 269.

^{page 37 note 3} Zanzibar Order in Council, 1884, op. cit., s. 8 (b).

^{page 37 note 4} Hertslet, Vol. 19, p. 951, s. 3.

^{page 38 note 1} King's Regulations No. 2 of 1906, s. 1.

^{page 38 note 2} See above p. 37, note 2.

^{page 38 note 3} No. 2 of 1907.

^{page 38 note 4} ib., s. 26.

^{page 38 note 5} See post p. 41.

^{page 38 note 6} No. 2 of 1907, s. 16.

^{page 38 note 7} ib., s. 17.

^{page 39 note 1} S.R. & O. 1914 No. 153, ss. 29 (1) and 64 (1).

^{page 39 note 2} S.R. & O. 1914 No. 151, ss. 2 and 5.

^{page 39 note 3} No. 20 of 1917 (Rev. Laws, 1922 Ed., Vol. 111, p. 1429).

^{page 39 note 4} See post p. 42.

^{page 39 note 5} By the Jurors ‘and Assessors’ Regulations, s. 26. See above p. 38, note 4.

^{page 39 note 6} A possible reason for this is the very small European population of Zanzibar, since by s. 262 of the Decree only Europeans were qualified to serve as jurors.

^{page 39 note 7} Criminal Procedure Decree, 1917, s. 227 (1).

^{page 39 note 8} ib., s. 256 (2).

^{page 39 note 9} Now cap. 27 of the Laws of Kenya, 1948 Revision.

^{page 39 note 10} See Laws of Zanzibar, 1934 Revision, cap. 8.

^{page 39 note 11} ib., s. 209.

^{page 39 note 12} ib., s. 245.

^{page 39 note 13} ib., s. 302.

^{page 39 note 14} No. 6 of 1949, s. 2.

^{page 40 note 1} Proclamation in London Gazette, 18th June, 1895. A ten-mile-wide strip along the coast had been ceded to the company's predecessor by the Sultan of Zanzibar in return for an annuity in 1887. This “strip” was proclaimed a protectorate along with other possessions of the Sultan in 1890 (see above p. 36, note 7). In 1920 the interior was annexed as the Kenya Colony, but the “strip”, still technically part of the Sultan's dominions, remained a protectorate. This has never had any significance as regards trial by jury. See Colonial Office List, 1959, at p. 106. Evans, I. L., The British in Tropical Africa (Cambridge, 1929), pp. 314–321.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 2} S.R. & O. 1897, No. 575.

^{page 40 note 3} ib., s. 11 (b) and 1st Schedule. For Chapter XXXIII as applied in Zanzibar see above p. 37.

^{page 40 note 4} ib., s. 14.

^{page 40 note 5} Cf. above p. 37, note 2.

^{page 40 note 6} Zanzibar section quoted above at p. 37.

^{page 40 note 7} S.R. & O., 1899, No. 757, s. 4.

^{page 41 note 1} By the Eastern African Protectorate (Court of Appeal) Order in Council. (S.R. & O., 1902, No. 664.)

^{page 41 note 2} By the Appeals Ordinance (No. 28 of 1902), s. 2.

^{page 41 note 3} By the East Africa Order in Council (S.R. & O., 1902, No. 661), s. 15(1).

^{page 41 note 4} No. 5 of 1906.

^{page 41 note 5} This phrase was amended to read “High Court” by Ordinance No. 14 of 1907, s. 5, after the passing of the Courts Ordinance (No. 13 of 1907). See below, note 8.

^{page 41 note 6} East Africa Order in Council, 1906. (S.R. & O., 1906, No. 514.)

^{page 41 note 7} See Order dated 27th March, 1906, which specified that where a European or American was charged with an offence punishable by death, transportation or imprisonment for more than seven years the jury was to consist of nine persons.

^{page 41 note 8} No. 13 of 1907, s. 32.

^{page 41 note 9} Criminal Procedure Ordinance (No. 16 of 1908), s. 2.

^{page 41 note 10} See above p. 39.

^{page 42 note 1} See post p. 45.

^{page 42 note 2} R. v. Poole, 10th December, 1959.

^{page 42 note 3} Cap. 7 in the 1926 Revision of the Laws.

^{page 42 note 4} ib., s. 223 (1).

^{page 42 note 5} ib., s. 227(1).

^{page 42 note 6} ib., s. 262.

^{page 42 note 7} ib., s. 256 (2).

^{page 42 note 8} Gap. 27 of the Laws in the 1948 Revision.

^{page 42 note 9} See ss. 218–220 and 226.

^{page 42 note 10} ib., s. 316.

^{page 43 note 1} For an account of the history of trial by jury in S. Rhodesia from the sociological standpoint see R. Howman: “Trial by Jury in S. Rhodesiaxy4, (1949) Rhodes-Livingstone Journal, 41.

^{page 43 note 2} (1918) 34 T.L.R. 595. This decision was not the result of litigation but of a reference by His Majesty to the Privy Council of the question as to where the ultimate ownership of land in S. Rhodesia lay.

^{page 43 note 3} ib., at p. 605.

^{page 43 note 4} ib., at p. 606.

^{page 43 note 5} See Howman, op. cit., at p. 43.

^{page 43 note 6} No. 4 of 1899. (S. Rhodesia Statute Law, Charter to 1910, ed. Speight, p. 405.)

^{page 44 note 1} ib., s. 5.

^{page 44 note 2} ib., s. 6.

^{page 44 note 3} High Commissioner's Proclamation No. 17 of 1898. (Speight, p. 94.)

^{page 44 note 4} No. 4 of 1899, s. 3.

^{page 44 note 5} ib., s. 4.

^{page 44 note 6} By the Juries Law Amendment Ordinance (No. 10 of 1908).

^{page 44 note 7} ib., s. 3 (1).

^{page 44 note 8} ib., s. 5.

^{page 44 note 9} Op. cit., at p. 45.

^{page 44 note 10} No. 10 of 1908, s. 3 (2).

^{page 44 note 11} ib., s. 2.

^{page 44 note 12} No. 13 of 1912.

^{page 44 note 13} ib., s. 3.

^{page 44 note 14} ib., s. 2.

^{page 45 note 1} ib., s. 6. There is an unresolved inconsistency between the first part of this section and s. 2.

^{page 45 note 2} Howman, op. cit., pp. 51–52.

^{page 45 note 3} Cf. Goodhart, op. cit., 76 L.Q.R. at 46: “It is obvious that this system is the most effective guard against governmental tyranny ever devised if-and this is an essential if-the ordinary citizen is prepared to show courage and independence.”

^{page 45 note 4} Until 1923 S. Rhodesia was administered by the British South Africa Company.

^{page 45 note 5} Howman, op. cit., at p. 56.

^{page 45 note 6} Howman, op. cit., p. 62.

^{page 45 note 7} No. 18 of 1927.

^{page 45 note 8} ib., s. 4.

^{page 46 note 1} ib., s. 3.

^{page 46 note 2} Now cap. 28 in the 1939 Revision of the Laws.

^{page 46 note 3} The relevant sections are ss. 169–225.

^{page 46 note 4} See s. 171.

^{page 46 note 5} For minor amendments to various provisions see No. 52 of 1949, No. 27 of 1950, and No. 24 of 1958.

^{page 46 note 6} See Weekly Hansard, 24th November, 1959, Co. 177.

^{page 47 note 1} Cf. for another potential extension the inclusion in the High Court Law, 1955, of the Northern Region of Nigeria of a section giving the Governor in Council power to order jury trial for any offence or class of offences in specified districts charged against specified persons. See [1960] J.A.L. 145, n. 10.

^{page 47 note 2} The Nature of African Customary Law (Manchester, 1956), at p. 290.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 3} The African Sketch-Book (Vol. II, London, 1873), at p. 325. In addition to the authorities quoted above see also R. Knox-Mawer, “The Jury System in British Colonial Africa” [1958] J.A.L. 160–163. For those interested in the jury system in colonial territories generally there is a mass of opinion and evidence in the Report on the System of Trial by Fury in Courts of Session in the Mofassal, a selection from the records of the Government of India published by the Home Department (No. CCCLXVI) at Calcutta in 1899. See especially pp. 229–255, which contain the report of a Commission appointed to enquire into jury trial in Bengal. Unfortunately the evidence is completely uncorrelated and the opinions expressed are so diverse that comparison with African conditions is practically impossible.Google Scholar