How was it different to the way in which other British colonies at the time were managed? Did North Sudan, South Sudan, and Darfur receive different rights/treatment? How much did Egypt have a say in its administration?
Also, what was the supposed future of the region? Would it have been different if the revolution in 1952 had not happened?
Governance of Sudan was regulated by the Codominium Agreement between representatives of the Queen or King of England and the Khedive of Egypt.
Functionally, Sudan was administered by a Governor-General who was appointed by the Khedive, on the advice of the British government. Of course, every Governor-General appointed was a British subject. This governor general reported through the British representative in Cairo to the Foreign Office in London. In contrast, colonial governors reported to the Colonial Office.
With the exception of matters that had a bearing on the interests of the British Empire (borders with French, Belgian or Italian colonies, etc) the Foreign Office treated Sudan with disinterest, and the Governors-general had much greater freedom of authority than most colonial governors.
In terms of the make-up of the administration, the higher levels (governor-general, governors of provinces and district commissioners) were always staffed by British subjects. At sub-district levels, the positions of mamurs and sub-mamurs were initially staffed by Egyptians, but Sudanese slowly made their way in these positions after 1913.
The peoples of Darfur were granted substantial autonomy prior to 1916. However, because of World War 1 conspiracy to align Darfur with the Ottoman Empire against British rule, Anglo-Egyptian forces conquered the region and fully incorporated it as a province of the Codominium.
Yes, there were several differences in governance between the North and the South of Sudan. In the North, Christian missionary activity was not permitted, to avoid offending the religious sensibilities of Muslim northerners. Likewise, the language of instruction in provincial schools was conducted in Arabic. Additionally, the bulk of armed forces in the region were drawn from Egypt in the earliest years (1899 to 1913).
In the south, there had not been the tradition of Arabization and conversion to Islam that had occurred in the north. Thus, provincial governors and commissioners granted permission for christian missionary activity, education was conducted in English, and efforts were made to raise local regiments and keep Egyptian soldiers out of the region.
How much did Egypt have a say in its administration?
Aside from the formality of the Khedive naming successive Governors-general, Egypt had little real say in setting policy for Sudan. This despite the fact that Egypt paid for the upkeep of regiments garrisoning the north, as well as infrastructure investments from 1899 until 1913, years when the administration in the Sudan was operating at a deficit. After 1913, the economy of Sudan was sufficiently robust to support a tax base that could produce a balanced budget.
As you might imagine, this lack of a voice in policy became a large and persistent bone of contention between Egypt and Britain throughout the period from 1899 to 1952.
Sources
A history of Modern Sudan by Robert O. Collins
A history of the Sudan: from the coming of Islam to the present day by P.M. Holt and M. W. Daly
Living with Colonialism by Heather J. Sharkey