protected by article 37 of the Constitution. That the payment of the bride-price or refund thereof does not interfere with the free consent of the parties to the marriage and thus does not contravene article 31 (1) or (3) of the Constitution. For the 1st respondent it was further pointed out that there are various types of marriages recognized by the law, without customary requirements from which parties can choose. Bride-price does not mean that a bride is for sale. It is merely symbolic of the parties appreciation for the upbringing of the girl. The girl is thus not degraded nor is she rendered as a chattel. Articles 24 and 21 (1) or (2) are thus not contravened. Mr. Kenneth Kakuru, the second respondent similarly denied all the allegations in the petition contending that the petition was premature and alternatively that the petitioners are not entitled to any of the prayers sought in paragraphs (b) (c) and (d) of the petition. The respondents prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs. The answers to the petition are supported by the affidavits of Margret Nabakooza, Kenneth Kakuru and Dr. Yusuf Mpairwe. At the scheduling conference the agreed issues were:(a) Whether the petition discloses issues for constitutional interpretation Whether the payment of bride price before marriage and its refund during (b) divorce are customs judicially noticed requiring no further proof. Whether bride price means different things in the different cultures of Uganda (c ) such that the Constitutional Court cannot make a uniform interpretation of the custom. Whether “Okujuga” in Ankole does not mean payment of the bride price and (d) whether “Okuzimura” in Ankole does not mean refund of the bride price. (e) Whether bride price is commonly practiced by all tribes in Uganda. Whether the custom of payment of bride price by groom’s family to the bride\s family promotes inequality in marriage, contrary to Article 21 (1), (2) & (3) (f) Constitution of Uganda which guarantees equality of person in all spheres including marriage. Whether the demand for bride price by parents of the bride as a condition precedent to a marriage fetters the free consent of the man and woman who are (g) the only parties to marriage contrary to the provisions of Article 32 (3) of the Constitution which provides that marriage shall be entered into with the free consent of the and woman intending to marry. Whether the payment of bride price by a man intending to marry a woman is a condition of inequality in marriages contrary to the provisions of Article 31 (3) (h) of the Constitution which demands that men and women shall be accorded equal rights in marriage and in dissolution. Whether the demand and payment of bride price as a condition precedent to a customary marriage and demand of the refund of bride price as condition to the (i) dissolution of a customary marriage are customs that are practiced in pursuit of a person’s culture which right is guaranteed in Article 37 of the Constitution. (j) Whether the demand and payment of bride price as a condition precedent to a 13