¹ No. 25 of 1967.

² No. 3 of 1902.

^{page 82 note 1} No. 13 of 1960.

^{page 82 note 2} No. 36 of 1964.

^{page 82 note 3} The only successful statutory intervention in the law of succession was the Asiatics (Marriage, Divorce and Succession) Ordinance, No. 13 of 1929, which simply accorded recognition to the religious personal laws of non-Christian Asians.

^{page 82 note 4} Section 86(2)

^{page 82 note 5} Sections 4 and 5.

^{page 82 note 6} Sections 6, 8 and 9.

^{page 82 note 7} See s. 6 of the Ordinance of 1964. While this provision apparently conformed with certain customary practices which were then developing in Malawi, the evidentiary problems involved in such a rule must have discouraged its adoption in the new Act.

^{page 82 note 8} Section 7. This follows the system under the Ordinance of 1960. Under the Ordinance of 1964, wills made by Africans were to be deposited with a local court. The office of the District Commissioner is certainly better equipped to handle a wills register than are most local courts.

^{page 83 note 1} Section 2 (1).

^{page 83 note 2} Sections 16(1) and 18(1).

^{page 83 note 3} No. 8 of 1962.

^{page 83 note 4} Proviso to s. 10(1).

^{page 84 note 1} Sections 8, 18(1).

^{page 84 note 2} Section (i), below.

^{page 84 note 3} Repetition of the situation which arose in Machinjili v. Kapusa (5 Ny.L.R. 74) accordingly remains possible, although in a recent decision BOLT, J., noted the repeal of s. 40 but gave no indication that he considered its substance to have survived: see Kamcaca v. Nkhota, Civil Cause No. 346 of 1967.

^{page 84 note 4} See s. 18(2) of the 1967 Act.

^{page 84 note 5} Section 18(3).

^{page 84 note 6} No. 13 of 1929.

^{page 84 note 7} Third Schedule.

^{page 85 note 1} See the speech of the Minister introducing the Bill in Parliament; reported at p. 39 of the Official Report of the First Meeting of the 5th Session of Parliament, October 1967.

^{page 85 note 2} Section 16(2).

^{page 85 note 3} Section 16(2) (a) (ii) and the First Schedule.

^{page 85 note 4} Section 16(2) (b) (i).

^{page 85 note 5} Section 16(6).

^{page 85 note 6} Section 16(4).

^{page 85 note 7} Section 17.

^{page 85 note 8} Section 17(1) (a).

^{page 85 note 9} Section 17(1) (b).

^{page 85 note 10} Section 17(1) (d).

^{page 86 note 1} Section 17 (1) (d).

^{page 86 note 2} Section 17(1) (e).

^{page 86 note 3} For a discussion of the aims of the 1964 Ordinance, see Simon Roberts, “A revolution in the law of succession in Malawi”, [1966] J.A.L. 21.

^{page 86 note 4} Section 17(3).

^{page 86 note 5} Section 16(4).

^{page 86 note 6} Section 22(1).

^{page 87 note 1} See Local Courts (Small Estates) Rules, G.N. 256 of 1967.

^{page 87 note 2} Section 61.

^{page 87 note 3} Legislation passed in Malawi is invariably widely publicized through the Malawi Congress Party. It may be noted that, although the Ordinance of 1964 was never officially brought into operation, there are numerous reports of local court chairmen in fact ‘applying’ it in cases brought before them in the period following the passage of the Ordinance through Parliament. There is no reason to suppose that there is less popular awareness of the present enactment, despite the fact that it does not enjoy the accolade of the President’s name in the short title.

^{page 87 note 4} Section 61(1).

^{page 88 note 1} Section 63(1).

^{page 88 note 2} Section 63(3).