In the instant petition, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to establish the practice of bride price payment on marriage by, in the first instance, call witnesses or documentary evidence or any other satisfactory evidence to prove the practice. Although the court has got a wide discretion on this matter, the onus is on the party seeking to rely on the custom. Although many affidavits were filed alleging the suffering that might be caused or due to the practice of customary bride price, there was not a single affidavit to prove the custom. In the circumstances, I am unable to hold that the practice is so notorious that it should be judiciary noticed by the court. For the remaining issues for convenience I intend to consider them together as there is a lot of overlapping. As already noted, this matter is before this Court to determine the constitutionality of the custom and practice of demand and payment of bride price as requirement of customary marriage and or the refund of dowry as a requirement for its dissolution. As can be seen from the court record, many affidavits were filed in support of the arguments that the custom of bride price is unconstitutional. At the outset, it is important to note that the bride price encompasses two scenarios. First, the parents of a potential bride may require a bride price from their potential son-in-law as a condition precedent to their lawful customary marriage. Secondly, in the event of a valid dissolution of marriage, the husband may demand refund of the bride price. I wish to begin by acknowledging the significant rights and protections that the Constitution accords to women (SeeArticle 31(1), (3) (rights to freely enter into marriage); Article 33 (rights of women to equality with men). Moreover, the Court is cognizant of the constitutional provisions intended to correct historical imbalances and an unequal playing field as between men and women (SeeArt. 33(6)). The Court, further, acknowledges the sentiment expressed by the petitioners that anytime a woman is equated with a sum of money or property, as occurs in any bride price agreement, such an agreement does, on its face, seem to undermine the status of the woman vis-à-vis the man. A potential bride price being discussed in terms of any quantity of money does, at first glance, seem to violate the constitutional prohibition against customs that undermine the status of a woman (See Art. 33(6)). However, I accept the respondent’s contention that in many situations, a bride price agreement is intended to show appreciation to the parents of a bride. In numerous instances, a bride price agreement may be entered into with joy by two parties seeking the felicities of a marriage relationship. Moreover, while Petitioners have produced affidavits suggesting that bride price can lead to social ills such as domestic abuse, the Court cannot state that such instances occur as a matter of course, or are definitively linked to a bride price arrangement. In any case, there are varied and numerous causes of spousal abuse, and the Court cannot say with certainty that bride price to be per se unconstitutional on such a ground. It is true bride price in some cases plays a factor in domestic abuse and women being treated as inferiors but that is no justification for the court to make a blanket prohibition of the practice of bride price. 9