Introduction

Introduction
Authors Olivier Moréteau
ISSN: 2521-2605
Affiliations: President of Juris Diversitas
Source: Journal of Comparative Law in Africa, Volume 2 Issue 2, p. 1
Abstract
None
ISSN: 2521-2605
Affiliations: President of Juris Diversitas
Source: Journal of Comparative Law in Africa, Volume 2 Issue 2, p. 1
None
ISSN: 2521-2605
Affiliations: Associate Professor, Department of Public Law, University of Cape Town, Attorney of the High Court of South Africa
Source: Journal of Comparative Law in Africa, Volume 2 Issue 1, p. 118 – 126
None
ISSN: 2521-2605
Affiliations: PhD Researcher, Centre for Comparative Law in Africa, University of Cape Town
Source: Journal of Comparative Law in Africa, Volume 2 Issue 1, p. 111 – 116
None
ISSN: 2521-2605
Affiliations: Legal Officer, Nigerio Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC)
Source: Journal of Comparative Law in Africa, Volume 2 Issue 1, p. 101 – 110
The history of the establishment of the first deposit insurance system dates as far back as 1933 in the United States of America. Since then, the system has been recognised as an invaluable component of an efficient financial safety net in the economy of nations that have a stable financial system, and has been adopted and domesticated by many countries across the world. Despite the apparent benefits of a deposit insurance system, its penetration on the African continent has been low. This article seeks to examine the deposit insurance system and highlight its benefits to the financial systems that have adopted it on the African continent. Some of the reasons for the low penetration of this insurance system in Africa are examined and recommendations on how that situation could be reversed in the long run are proffered.
ISSN: 2521-2605
Affiliations: Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and Certified Public Secretary of Kenya
Source: Journal of Comparative Law in Africa, Volume 2 Issue 1, p. 74 – 100
Generally, countries enter into monetary union agreements to promote economic integration. In turn, this economic integration is meant to spur equitable development among the member states. Aside from the potential economic gains, monetary unions raise a myriad of serious issues that are constitutional and political in nature. This is because this practice transfers sovereign power of the people from the nation to a supranational organisation. As such, this shift in authority alters the framework of a country’s governance system. This legal quandary forms the spine of this article. It seeks to demystify these constitutional issues from the perspective of Kenya and the prospective East African Monetary Union (EAMU). In addition, it provides a comparative study of the practice in Germany within the European Union (EU) and lessons it offers to Kenya in manoeuvring this legal dilemma.
ISSN: 2521-2605
Affiliations: Docteur en Droit privé, Assistant à la Faculté de Droit et de Sciences Politiques Université d’Abomey-Calavi, Bénin
Source: Journal of Comparative Law in Africa, Volume 2 Issue 1, p. 39 – 73
Many voices have welcomed the recent recognition by the OHADA legislator of the agreement of forfeiture. The agreement is presented as a recovery mechanism, which offers the opportunity to obtain the repayment of secured debt quicker and cheaper. Yet the real situation is far from this objective. This article explains how, in practice, the creditor beneficiary of the agreement of forfeiture only has in his hands a weapon of relative efficiency, accompanied by uncertain effectiveness.