measures can also be taken by the appropriate legislatures to curb excesses like commercialization of the bride wealth. Such parties should be encouraged to resort to those laws and the remedies they offer. The hardships and difficulties experienced by individuals at the hands of their partners in marriage notwithstanding, the custom which has operated among the people of Uganda from time immemorial with full acceptance of its nature as one having the force of law, cannot be denied of its constitutional guarantee and protection by Article 37 of the Constitution. I therefore find in the affirmative on this issue. Issue (j). The gist in this issue is the complaint that payment of bride price as a condition precedent to the validity of a customary marriage and a demand for its refund as a condition precedent to a valid dissolution of the same comoditifies a wife thus injuring her dignity contrary to Article 31(1) of the Constitution. Article 33 (1) provides:“33(1) Women shall be accorded full and equal dignity of the person with men.” Again, the attitude that bride wealth as practiced by various nationalities of Uganda comoditifies a wife married under customary law is basically the result of the misconception of the custom as erroneously decreed by court in R V Amkeyo (Supra) which I have dealt with at length during my resolution of issues (g) and (h) above. I will not therefore repeat it here. It applies with equal force to this issue. I accept the submission of the second respondent that during the process of contracting a customary marriage, there is no girl on offer for sale. The bride remains the daughter of her parents in the Kinyankole culture and indeed in other cultures. Custom and tradition also have it that one of the purposes of giving cows to the parents of the bride as bride wealth, at least in the Kinyankole culture, is to ensure that whenever their daughter comes visiting home there would be a ready source of milk for the daughter and her friends to enjoy. That is far from eroding away the dignity of the bride. I therefore find that there is no commoditification of the bride in such a marriage. Article 31 (1) of the Constitution is not contravened by the giving of bride wealth by the bride groom to the parents of the bride. Looked at it this way, bride wealth ceases to present the greatly misconceived picture painted by the decision of Hamilton CJ in R Vs Amukeyo (supra). To adopt that attitude would be a resurrection of the ghost of Amkeyo (supra) from a 93 year slumber in the limbo of dead attitudes to African customary law on bride wealth where it should be left and allowed to lay and rest in eternal peace, as it has been, since it was dispatched there 43 years ago by Sir Udo Udoma CJ (as he then was), in Alai Vs Uganda 1967 EA 596 at the advance age of fifity years during which period it appears to have reigned supreme in that area. The learned Chief Justice held; “(1)……….any married woman in s.150 A Penal Code means any woman who is married to any man irrespective of the form of such marriage; provided that such marriage has been conducted in one of 51