IN MOST AFRICAN SOCIETIES, A HISTORY OF COLONIALISM COMBINED WITH THE GROWTH OF TECHNOLOGY AND URBANISM HAVE PRODUCED A NETWORK OF INDIGENOUS TRADITIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND ATTITUDES WHICH COEXIST WITH MODERN COMMERCIALLY ORIENTED RELATIONSHIPS. THE RESULT HAS BEEN TENSION BETWEEN THE DESIRE FOR UNITARY AND UNIFORM JUSTICE AND THE NEED FOR A PLURALISTIC SYSTEM. INDIGENOUS NATIVE COURTS AND COLONIAL COURTS USE SHARPLY CONTRASTING METHODS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION. LITERATURE DESCRIBING THE VARYING EXPERIENCES IN SENEGAL, TANZANIA, ZAIRE, NORTHERN NIGERIA, ETHIOPIA, AND KENYA, REPORTS HOW TYPICAL TRADITIONAL COURTS, RELYING ON ORAL PROCEDURES, AND MODERN COURTS USING MORE FORMAL APPROACHES HAVE BEEN INTEGRATED WHILE PRESERVING PLURALISTIC SYSTEMS OF JUSTICE. THE RESULTING SYSTEMS HAVE RETAINED CUSTOMARY DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES, HAVE CONTINUED HIGHER COURTS ON THE FORMAL WESTERN MODEL, AND HAVE INTRODUCED AN INTERMEDIATE FORUM USING SIMPLE PROCEDURES AND PARAPROFESSIONALS, AND ALTERNATIVE FORUMS SUCH AS OMBUDSMEN AND SPECIAL LABOR COURTS. THESE ELEMENTS, WHICH HAVE INTERACTED AND CHANGED OVER TIME, CONSTITUTE DYNAMIC PLURALISM, IN CONTRAST TO THE STATIC PLURALISM OF THE COLONIAL ERA. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE SYSTEMS HAS NOT YET BEEN DETERMINED. NEVERTHELESS, POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS OUTSIDE AFRICA, AND IN THE U.S. IN PARTICULAR, INCLUDE ESTABLISHING JUDICIAL PLURALISM IN RESPONSE TO SOCIAL PLURALISM, USING SIMPLIFIED AND CONCILIATORY JUSTICE MECHANISMS, AND ENCOURAGING LIMITED COURT ACTIVISM IN RESPONSE TO INEQUALITIES BETWEEN LITIGANTS IN THE HIGHER COURTS. FOOTNOTES INCLUDING REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (CFW)