ABSTRACT
Until fairly recently, comparatists and legal historians had shown little interest in one of the fairly unique mixed—or to be more precise, bijural—legal systems in the world: the Cameroonian bijural system. Yet the Cameroonian system provides “a fascinating example of a comparative law melting pot with peculiar and multifaceted problems” (Fombad 1999: 22). Although quite young in comparison with most mixed systems, it has long exemplified some of the intricate issues that may arise when two modern competing but often divergent European legal systems—the English common law and the French civil law—coexist within a developing country. Cameroon is in the process of modernizing its legal system by developing homegrown uniform national laws. Most existing literature on the country’s legal system examines some of the laws that have been harmonized in the legal modernization process since the 1970s and also considers some of the challenges that the country has grappled with in the process (see Anyangwe 1987; Clarence-Smith 1968; Fombad 1991; 1997; 1999; Munzu 1989; Parant, Gilg, and Clarence-Smith 1967; Tumnde 2010). None of these studies have attempted to provide a substantive overview of the nature and scope of the emerging harmonized national laws and their effect on the bijural legal framework. In 1993, along with 13 other mostly francophone West and Central African countries, Cameroon signed a treaty establishing the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (generally referred to by its French acronym, OHADA). 1 When it came into effect by Decree 96/177 of September 5, 1996, 2 the treaty immediately subjected the whole country to the OHADA Uniforms Acts and, in doing so, raised complex questions about the prospects for sustaining the bijural system at a time when the English law element of the mix appeared to be fast disappearing.
