1. Schiller, Native Customary Law in the Netherlands East Indies, Pacific Affairs, 9 (1936), 254, 263.Google Scholar

2. Adatrechtbundels, ed. by K. Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, since 1910Google Scholar; Landraadnummers, in Tijdschrift van het Recht, since 1929.Google Scholar

3. Cf. Allott, , Essays in African Law (1960), 154 ff.Google Scholar

4. Kollewijn, , Interregional en intemationaal privaatrecht (1938)Google Scholar; for a survey of this and other types of conflict problems in the Netherlands Indies, see Schiller, Conflict of Laws in Indonesia, Far Eastern Quarterly, 2 (1942), 31 ff.Google Scholar

5. These “constitutional” provisions are set forth in the Orders in Council of the various territories. E.g., Tanganyika Order in Council, 1920, Art. 17 (a): “Subject to the other provisions of this Order, such civil and criminal jurisdiction shall, so far as circumstances admit, be exercised in conformity with the Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure and Penal Codes of India and the other Indian Acts and other laws which are in force in the Territory at the date of the commencement of this Order or may hereafter be applied or enacted, and subject thereto and so far as the same shall not extend or apply shall be exercised in conformity with the substance of the common law, the doctrines of equity and the statutes of general application in force in England at the date of this Order and with the powers vested in and according to the procedure and practice observed by and before Courts of Justice and Justices of the Peace in England according to their respective jurisdictions and authorities at that date, save in so far as the said Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure and Penal Codes of India and other Indian Acts and other laws in force as aforesaid and the said common law doctrines of equity and statutes of general application and the said powers, procedure and practice may … be modified, amended or replaced by other provision in lieu thereof by or under the authority of any Order of His Majesty in Council, or by any Proclamation issued or by any Ordinance or Ordinances passed in and for the Territory; Provided always, that the said common law, doctrines of equity and statutes of general application shall be in force in the Territory so far only as the circumstances of the Territory and its inhabitants and the limits of His Majesty's Jurisdiction permit, and subject to such qualifications as local circumstances may render necessary.” To the same effect, Kenya Order in Council, 1921, Art. 4(2); Uganda Order in Council, 1902, Art. 15(2); Zanzibar Order in Council, 1924, Art. 24.

6. For the Indies counterpart, see the survey in the Introduction by Schiller, to ter Haar, Adat Law in Indonesia (1948), 14 ff.Google Scholar

7. Allott, , op. dt. supra, note 3, 156 ff.Google Scholar

8. His articles in this field are collected in his Intergentiel Recht. Verzamclde opstellen over intergentiel privaatrecht (1955).Google Scholar

9. For a discussion of the terminology in the whole gamut of internal conflict of laws, see Vitta, , Conflitti interni ed internazionali, 1 (1954), 17 ff.Google Scholar

10. For the relation between Islamic law and native law and custom, see Anderson, , Islamic Law in Africa (1954), 3 ff.Google Scholar

11. A typical provison is that of Tanganyika Order in Council, 1920, Art. 24: “In all cases civil and criminal to which natives are parties every Court shall (a) be guided by native law so far as it is applicable and is not repugnant to justice and morality or inconsistent with any Order in Council or Ordinance or Regulation or Rule made under any Order in Council or Ordinance; and shall (b) decide all such cases according to substantial justice without undue regard to technicalities of procedure and without undue delay.” To the same effect, Kenya Order in Council, 1921, Art. 7; Uganda Order in Council, 1902, Art. 20. Zanzibar has no identical provision.

12. See also Allott, , op. cit., 167 ff.Google Scholar; many examples of statutory definitions, 173 ff.

13. Kenya, Courts Ordinance (cap. 3), § 18.

14. The Moslem judge at the lowest instance; the name is various spelled, the variant used in the reports is retained herein.

15. Public Trustee v. Jiwa bin Bwana Hindi Ganeji, 14 K.L.R. 117 (Kenya Supreme Court, 1933).Google Scholar

16. Mussa bin Shaban, Comerian v. The Crown, 8 Z.L.R. 130 (H.B.M.'s Ct., Zanzibar, 1950).Google Scholar

17. Rex v. Ibrahim Mohamed, 6 Ug. L.R. 91 (Uganda High Court, 1941).Google Scholar

18. Mohamed Raza Suleman Versi and another v. Sheikh Abdullah bin Suleiman and another, representatives of Sheikh Suleiman bin Massor el Lemki, 1 T.L.R. (R.) 547 (High Court, Tanganyika, 1951).Google Scholar

19. Ibrahim Esmail Hasham v. Nasser bin Salim Saad el-Harthi and others, 2 T.L.R. (R.) 220 (1955).Google Scholar

20. Purshottam Narandas Kotak v. A. Ali Abdullah, [1957] E.A. 321, [1958] J.A.L. 63.Google Scholar

21. Rex v. Oumu, 2 Ug.L.R. 152 (1915).Google Scholar

22. Rex v. Amkeyo, 7 E.A.L.R. 14 (1917).Google Scholar

23. Rex v. Mwakio Asani, 14 K.L.R. 133 (EACA, 1930)Google Scholar; Rex v. Toya, 14 K.L.R. 145 (EACA, 1932).Google Scholar

24. Philips, , Report on Native Tribunals, Kenya (1945), 292.Google Scholar

25. Laila Jhina Mawji and another v. The Queen, [1957] A.C. 126, [1957] J.A.L. 116, 2 T.L.R.(R.) 371 (1956).Google Scholar

26. Potentially polygamous marriages have been recognized for some purposes in England, Bandail v. Bandail, [1946] P. 122, [1946] 1 All.E.R. 342Google Scholar: cf. Ohochuku v. Ohochuku, [1960] 1 W.L.R. 183, [1960] 1 All.E.R. 253.Google Scholar

27. Ambar bin Abdurrehman, Galla v. Elmi Ali, Somali, 6 E.A.L.R. 145 (1916).Google Scholar

28. The editor notes that payment of Galla bride-price does not apply to Moslems marrying by Mohammedan rites; hence the payments are “jehaz” or “ngmo” under the Sheria (Islamic law).

29. Sebastian Luzibukya Kakiko v. Mwami Felix Luzakingela Musikula, 1 Dig. App. Local Ct. 6, No. 21 (1942).Google Scholar

30. Abdulla Juma v. Kaluli Kashaga, reported by Anderson, , Islamic Law, 143 (Tanganyika, n.d.).Google Scholar

31. Ngeso Arap Leseret v. Ibrahim, 12 K.L.R. 50 (1929).Google Scholar

32. Re G.M. (an Infant), [1957] E.A. 714, [1959] J.A.L. 72 (Kenya Supreme Court, 1957).

33. Cf. Kenya Order in Council, i gat, Art. 7, supra, note 11.

34. Mohamed Hassan v. Nana binti Mzee, 11 E.A.C.A. 4 (1944).Google Scholar

35. Note, [1959] J.A.L. 72.

36. Benjamin Jembe v. Priscilla Nyondo, 4 E.A.L.R. 160 (High Court, E. Africa, 1912).Google Scholar

37. Ali Ganyuma v. Ali Mohamed, 11 K.L.R. 30 (1927).Google Scholar

38. Considerable discontent exists, particularly if pagan wives and children are left destitute by reason of the husband being bullied into accepting Islam on his death-bed. Cf. Phillips, , op. cit. supra, note 24, 128 ff.Google Scholar; Anderson, , op. cit. supra, note 10, 112.Google Scholar

39. Fartoo binti Saidmuyungu v. Mudir Koani and another, 8 Z.L.R. 18 (H.H. Sultan's Ct., Zanzibar, 1948).Google Scholar

40. Seleman bin Sudi v. Hasan bin Ali, reported by Anderson, , Islamic Law, 137 (Liwali court, n.d.).Google Scholar

41. Cf. further, Anderson, , Islamic Law, 139 ff.Google Scholar

42. Muluwa Gwanombi and others, representing Jibana tribe v. Abdulrasool Alidana Visram, 5 E.A.L.R. 141 (High Court, E. Africa, 1914)Google Scholar; affirmed, Abdulrasool Aladina Visram v. Muluwa Gwanombi and others, 6 E.A.L.R. 31 (EACA, 1915).Google Scholar

43. Joao Baptista Coutinho v. Land Officer, 7 E.A.L.R. 180 (High Court, A. Africa, 1918).Google Scholar

44. Parenti v. Barclay and another, 4 E.A.L.R. 80 (1911).Google Scholar

45. Mtoro bin Mwamba v. Attorney-General, 20 E.A.C.A. 108, 2 T.L.R.(R.) 327 (1953).Google Scholar

46. Cf. Middleton, , Land Tenure in Zanzibar (1961), 75 ff.Google Scholar

47. Petero Zake v. Samusoni Bazongere, unreported, commented upon by Haydon, , Law and Justice in Buganda (1961), 29 f., 44.Google Scholar

48. Decision upheld by Whitley, C.J., High Court, Uganda, Civil Appeal No. 15 of 1942, unreported.

49. See Kollewijn's article, in his collected studies Integentiel Recht, 11 ff.Google Scholar

50. Secretary of State v. Mahomed bin Abdullah, I E.A.L.R. 41 (High Court, E. Africa, 1901).Google Scholar Later, the Masters and Servants Ordinance of 1906 was enacted; now the Employment Ordinance, cap. 109.

51. Kibalama and another v. Basazemagya and others, 6 Ug.L.R. 137 (Uganda High Court, 1944).Google Scholar

52. Mohamed Tilwiluhwa v. Isirisha Kalokora and another, 3 Dig. App. Local Ct. 4, No. 86 (Cent. Ct. of Appeal, 1956).Google Scholar

53. Cory, and Hartnoll, , Customary Law of the Haya Tribe, Tanganyika Territory (1945)Google Scholar, §§ 929 and 930. See also the statement respecting Cory and Hartnoll, in 5 Dig. App. Local Ct 12.

54. Kivu v. Rex per Lukiko, 6 Ug. L.R. 109 (1942).Google Scholar

55. A recent holding of the Judicial Adviser, in Omukulu we Police v. Rev. Joseph M. Kisabwe, [1961] J.A.L. 61Google Scholar, indicated that the Principal Court should not refuse to entertain a charge of defamation – for the reason that as an offense under the Penal Code it was subject to trial in the Protectorate courts – until it first made a finding that there was no such offense under customary law. Kivu v. Rex seems to indicate that there is such an offense.

56. Bishala binti Abdulla v. Ramathan wa Kuze and others, 4 E.A.L.R. 139 (High Court, E. Africa, 1912).Google Scholar

57. Mahomed bin Salim v. Nur Mahomed Manji Kanji, 6 E.A.L.R. 148 (1916).Google Scholar

58. Athman bin Mohamed v. Abdulhosein Karimji, 7 E.A.L.R. 5 (High Court, E. Africa, 1917).Google Scholar

59. Waiharo wa Kingate v. Kamuete wa Nginyi, 11 K.L.R. 67 (1927).Google Scholar

60. Lolkilite ole Ndinoni v. Netwala ole Nebele, 19 E.A.C.A. 1 (on appeal from Kenya Supreme Court, 1950).Google Scholar

61. Fleming, , Recent Developments in Customary Kisoga Land Tenure (1961), 49.Google Scholar

62. Allott, , Essays, 192Google Scholar n 1, refers to an unreported Civil case No. 212 of 1958.

63. Kataso Kabondola v. Musalolo Mulongo, 1 Dig. App. Local Ct. 2, No. 7 (1952).Google Scholar

64. Local Courts Ordinance (cap. 299), § 15, subject to Order in Council, 1920, Art. 24. A customary law rule to similar effect was upheld in the native courts of the Busiki region in Busoga, Uganda, but the District Court reversed the decision, in order to obtain uniformity of decision in the District, see supra, note 61.

65. Fazalan Bibi v. Tehran Bibi and another, 8 E.A.L.R. 200 (High Court, 1921).Google Scholar

66. Asha binti Awadh v. Ali bin Awadh, 7 Z.L.R. 117 (H.H. Sultan's Ct., Zanzibar, 1949).Google Scholar

67. Mistry Amar Singh v. Hozara Singh, 13 E.A.C.A. 18 (on appeal from Kenya Supreme Court, 1946).Google Scholar

68. Sir G. Graham Paul dissented, for he would not agree that the Supreme Court was authorized to exercise its jurisprudence in conformity with the rules of Hindu law when the parties to the suit were Hindus. This would amount to putting Hindus in a class similar to natives, which the Order in Council does not do. Thus the Court should assume – since Hindu law was neither stated nor proved – that the claim was pursued in accordance with the law of the Court, that is, English law.

69. Vishram Dhanji v. Lalji Ruda, [1957] E.A. 110.Google Scholar

70. Chhaganlal P. Jani v. Ranchoddas Kalyanji & antoher, 8 Z.L.R. 95 (H.B.M.'s Ct., Zanzibar, 1956).Google Scholar

71. In the earlier suit between the same parties for maintenance, Chhaganlal Purshotam Jani v. Mrs. Umibai Chhaganlal Jani and another, 19 E.A.C.A. 187 (1952)Google Scholar, the EACA held that authoritative evidence of the personal law of the parties had to be ascertained by the British judge in H.B.M.'s Court at Zanzibar before rendering his decision. At this point reference may be made to Hakam Bibi v. Mistry Fateh Mahommed, 28 K.L.R. 91 (Kenya Supreme Court, 1955)Google Scholar, not a conflicts case but one concerned with the means by which personal religious law was to be proven, valuable in that Acting Justice Cram took the opportunity to comment on some thirty cases involving actions resting on personal status, thus affording a survey of much of the personal conflicts law of the territories of British East Africa in one case.

72. Livingston Sadala v. Grace Kache, 4 E.A.L.R. 1 (1911).Google Scholar

73. Fatuma Bachoo v. Majothi Kara Juma Balia, 1 T.L.R. (R.) 616 (Tanganyika High Court, 1946)Google Scholar; same case, on appeal, 13 E.A.C.A. 50 (1946).

74. See supra, note 5.

75. Maleksultan v. Sherali Jeraj, 22 E.A.C.A. 142 (1955), [1957] J.A.L. 58.Google Scholar

76. Art. 17(2) does not curtail exercise of jurisdiction; it merely seeks to fit in English common law and equity with the circumstances of the community.

77. Mahmud Nasser Rattansey v. Hamidabai Mahmud Rattansey (nee Hazel May Higgins), [1960] E.A. 81.Google Scholar

78. Jerome Resho v. Angweda, 2. E.A.L.R. 21 (High Court, E. Africa, 1906).Google Scholar

79. Gulam Mahomed v. Gulam Fatima and another, 6 E.A.L.R. 119 (EACA, 1916).Google Scholar

80. In a later case involving the same parties, the wife who had renounced Islam for Christianity sought to have the marriage annulled or dissolved; the Kenya Supreme Court held that it had no jurisdiction in a matrimonial cause when the husband was domiciled in India, Gulam Fatuma v. Gulam Mahomed, 7 E.A.L.R. 30 (High Court, E. Africa, 1917).Google Scholar

81. Rana Ramji v. Radhabai Natha, 5 Z.L.R. 91 (H.B.M.'s Ct., Zanzibar, 1937).Google Scholar

82. Umedgir Motiger Gosai v. Mrs. Kusumben Umedgir Gosai, [1958] E.A. 668.Google Scholar

83. Sheriff Abdulla bin Mohamed v. Zuena binti Abedi, 4 E.A.L.R. 86 (High Court, E. Africa, 1912).Google Scholar See also Mbaruk bin Diwansap v. Hamsini bin Jumbe Kimemeta, 11 K.L.R. 56 (Kenya Supreme Court, 1927)Google Scholar, where Mohammedan law was declared applicable with respect to the custody of a marriageable girl.

84. Sheriff Abdulla bin Mohamed v. Zwena binti Abedi, Kenya Supreme Court, Civil Appeal 20 of 1923, unreported.

85. Fazalan Bibi v. Tehran Bibi and another, 8 E.A.L.R. 200 (1921).Google Scholar

86. Mohamed Hassan v. Nana binti Mzee, 11 E.A.C.A. 4 (1944)Google Scholar, on appeal from Kenya Supreme Court, 20 K.L.R. 3 (1942).

87. Anderson, , Islamic Law, 106Google Scholar, takes issue with this decision; there appears to be no specific legislation which has ousted the duty of the courts to follow the general principles of the law of Islam when dealing with the Mohammedan natives of the coastal region, a duty imposed by Native Court Regulations 1897, Art. 3. There can be no doubt but that the Kathis decide these cases according to the Sheria, though liable to be overruled on appeal.

88. Gajree Siri Krishnan v. Krishna Kumari, 28 K.L.R. 32 (1955).Google Scholar

89. Abdul Rahman Bazmi v. Sughra Sultana, [1960] E.A. 801.Google Scholar

90. Re Zainab Abdulsultan Nathoo, an infant, [1959] E.A. 917 (High Court, Tanganyika.Google Scholar

91. The Crown v. Rashid bin Saleh, 10 K.L.R. 25 (1925).Google Scholar

92. Sheksi binti Sheikh Tiro and others v. Mohamed bin Sheikh Tiro bin Shekue, 4 E.A.L.R. 66 (1911).Google Scholar

93. Halimbahai v. Abdarahim Haji Ismail Mithu, 5 E.A.L.R. 34 (High Court, E. Africa, 1913)Google Scholar, reversed, same case, 5 E.A.L.R. 130 (EACA, 1914), and affirmed, Abdulrahim Haji Ismail Nathu v. Halimabhai, 6 E.A.L.R. 113, 1 Z.L.R. 669 (P.C., 1916).Google Scholar

94. Shumbana binti Juma v. The Administrator General, 3 Z.L.R. 51 (High Court, Zanzibar, 1927).Google Scholar

95. Rashid Karmali and another v. Sherbanoo, 1 Z.L.R. 163, 29 B. 85 (1904).Google Scholar

96. In re Rehmatbhai binti Noser Juidani, 1 Z.L.R. 394 (H.B.M.'s Ct., Zanzibar, 1912).Google Scholar

97. Supra, note 94.

98. In re Hassanali Jadavji, deceased, 1 T.L.R.(R.) 729 (Tanganyika High Court, 1947).Google Scholar

99. Advocate-General ex rel. Daya Muhammad and others v. Aga Khan and others, i Z.L.R. 630 (Bombay High Court, 1866).Google Scholar

100. Mahomed Kermali Ismail v. Saleh Hassan and others, 1 Z.L.R. 448 (H.B.M.'s Ct., Zanzibar, 1914).Google Scholar

101. Public Trustee v. Nuruddin Kanji and another, 4 Z.L.R. 38 (H.B.M.'s Ct., Zanzibar, 1934).Google Scholar

102. In re Sunderiji Karim, deceased, 2 Ug.L.R. 342 (1919).Google Scholar

103. In re Kassum Premji, deceased, 1 T.L.R.(R.) 713 (1925)Google Scholar; Fatmabai v. Mahomed Ladha, 1 T.L.R.(R.) 715 (1928).Google Scholar

104. In re will of Premji Dhanji, 24(1) K.L.R. 40 (1950).Google Scholar

105. In re Jethalal Govindji, 1 T.L.R.(R.) 732 (Tanganyika High Court, 1942).Google Scholar

106. Re Mahomed Habash, deceased, 3 Ug.L.R. 26 (1920).Google Scholar

107. Secretary of State v. Charlesworth Pilling & Co. andanother, 1 E.A.L.R. 24 (Privy Council, on appeal from H.B.M.'s Ct., Zanzibar, sitting as EACA, 1900), 1 Z.L.R. 105.Google Scholar

108. Mzee bin Ali v. Allibhoy Nurbhoy, 1 E.A.L.R. 58 (High Court, E. Africa, 1903).Google Scholar

109. Edward Powys Cobb v. Rashid bin Salim, 3 E.A.L.R. 35 (High Court, E. Africa, 1909).Google Scholar

110. D'Albuquerque v. D'Albuquerque, 6 E.A.L.R. 66 (High Court, E. Africa, 1915).Google Scholar

111. Government of the Sultan of Zanzibar v. Vasanji Gokaldas, 1 Z.L.R. 154 (H.B.M's Ct., Zanzibar, 1903)Google Scholar; Ali bin Nassor bin Khalad and others v. Zwena binti Hamood, 1 Z.L.R. 365 (H.H. Sultan's Ct., Zanzibar, 1911)Google Scholar; Capt. F.R. Barton v. Wm. O'Swald & Co., 1 Z.L.R. 420 (H.B.M.'s Ct., Zanzibar, 1913).Google Scholar

112. Ali Karmali v. Hirbhai binti Samji Nagji, 10 E.A.C.A. 13 (1943).Google Scholar

113. Maryam binti Abdulla Shirazi v. Yona Muhuma Mnyamuezi, [1958] E.A. 415, [1958] J.A.L. 199.Google Scholar

114. Said bin Awad v. Mahfuz bin Ahmed, 1 Z.L.R, 189 (1906).Google Scholar

115. The Moslem law of the land was likewise held to be ousted by applied Indian Acts which fit the circumstances of the case, in Nathu Rahim v. Merali Walli, 2 E.A.L.R. 29 (EACA, 1907)Google Scholar, and Wakf Commissioners for Zanzibar v. Wallo Ramchor, 1 Z.L.R. 227 (H.B.M.'s Ct., Zanzibar, 1908).Google Scholar

116. Said bin Seif v. Shariff Mohamed Shatry, 19 K.L.R. 9 (1940).Google Scholar

117. Wakf Commissioners of Kenya v. Alimohamed Ali Nahdi, 18 E.A.C.A. 896 (1951).Google Scholar

118. Kenya Order in Council, 1921, Art. 4(2); cf. note 5, supra.

119. The doctrine of this case was applied, in an attempted disposition by trust of house and land separately at Dar es-Salaam, Khatijabai v. Kassam Sunderji Samji and others, 22 E.A.C.A. 301 (on appeal from the High Court of Tanganyika, 1955).Google Scholar

120. Abdulla Janmahomed v. Mahomed Valli Dharsi and others, 1 Z.L.R. 258 (H.B.M's Ct., Zanzibar, 1909).Google Scholar

121. Cf. Kingdon, , The Conflict of Laws in Zanzibar (1940), 28 ff.Google Scholar

122. Mohamed v. Abdulla, 5 Z.L.R. 26 (1938)Google Scholar, following Abdullah bin Sleyyum el Makeri v. The Administrator-General, 2 Z.L.R. 29 (H.H. Sultan's Ct., Zanzibar, 1921)Google Scholar, and Mbwana v. District Commissioner, Pemba, 5 Z.L.R. 20 (H.H. Sultan's Ct., Zanzibar, 1938).Google Scholar Accord: Kossim bin Mohamed Barwani v. Awadh bin Salim bin Awadh, 8 Z.L.R. 24 (H.H. Sultan's Ct., Zanzibar, 1948).Google Scholar

123. Dr. Francis Charlesworth v. Naranji Rawji and others, 1 Z.L.R. 186 (1906).Google Scholar

124. The British and the Sultanate Courts were not integrated until the Zanzibar Courts Decree, 1923.

125. Athman bin Mohamed v. Ali bin Salim and another, 6 E.A.L.R. 91 (1915).Google Scholar

126. Khamis bin Ahmed v. Ahmed bin Ali bin Abdurehman and others, 1 E.A.C.A. 130 (1934).Google Scholar

127. Hussein bin M'Nasar v. Abdulla bin Ahmed, 17 K.L.R. 95 (1937).Google Scholar

128. Baraka binti Said Bahmishi v. Salim bin Abed Basawadi, 20 (1) K.L.R. 34 (1942).Google Scholar

129. Masood bin Said and another v. Said bin Salim bin Mohamed Ghulwn, 14 E.A.C.A. 32 (1947).Google Scholar

130. Anderson, , Islamic law, 99Google Scholar, suggests that the Kadhis courts might be equated with native tribunals, and thus would not be bound by the Indian Evidence Act.

131. Mtwana bin Saleh v. Administrator-General and others, 7 Z.L.R. 166 (H.B.M's Ct., Zanzibar, 1940).Google Scholar

132. To the same effect, Seif bin Mahomed El-Mauli v. Administrator-General, Zanzibar Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1947Google Scholar (unreported), cited by Anderson, , Islamic Law, 71 n.I.Google Scholar

133. The author notes that the reports of the Kenya Court of Review, as well as the volume of opinions of the Uganda High Court on cases originating from the Buganda courts were not available to him at this time.

134. Cf. the brief survey in Schiller, , “Conflict of Laws in Indonesia,” Far Eastern Quarterly, 2 (1942), 31, 43 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

135. Cf. Kingdon, , op. cit. supra, note 121, 31 ff.Google Scholar

136. Vollenhoven, , Het Adatrecht van Nederlandsch-Indie, 1 (1925), 133 ff.Google Scholar