IHRDA SGBV Database

Mifumi (U) Ltd & 12 Others v Attorney General, Kenneth Kakuru
Court Division:
None
Case No:
Constitutional Petition No.12 Of 2007
Media Neutral Citation:
[2010] UGCC 2
Judgment Date:
26 March 2010

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UGANDA, AT KAMPALA
CORAM:
HON. JUSTICE DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE L.E.M. MUKASAKIKONYOGO
HON. JUSTICE A.E.N. MPAGI-BAHIGEINE, JA
HON. JUSTICE A. TWINOMUJUNI, JA
HON. JUSTICE C.K. BYAMUGISHA, JA
HON. JUSTICE S.B.K. KAVUMA, JA

CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 12 OF 2007
BETWEEN
MIFUMI (U) LTD & 12 OTHERS……………….PETITIONERS
AND
1.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

)

2.

KENNETH KAKURU

) ………….RESPONDENTS

1

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Info
1Connections

Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2007: Mifumi (U) Ltd and 12 others (petitioners) versus the Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru (respondents)

Cases

Court location: Kampala

Court: Constitutional Court, Uganda

Date of judgement: Mar 26, 2010

Complainant: Mifumi (U) Ltd et al

Articles alleged: Constitution of Uganda, Article 31(3); Constitution of Uganda, Article 21(1) and (2); Constitution of Uganda, Article 31(1); Constitution, Article 24

Articles violated: Constitution of Uganda, Articles 31(1)(b) 31(3) 32(2) and 33(1); Constitution of Uganda, Articles 31(3) and 32(2); Constitution of Uganda, Articles 24 31(1)and 32(2)

Keywords

Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
Discrimination
Divorce
Family
Women – equal treatment and opportunities

Gender of victim

Gender not specified

Gender of accused/perpetrator

Gender not specified

Language: en

Summary: This petition is brought under Article 2 (1) and (2), 137 (3), 93 (a) and (d) of the Constitution of Uganda and Rule 3 of the Constitutional Court (Petitions and References Rules S. 1 91 of 2009. It is filed on behalf of thirteen petitioners. The first petitioner is a non-governmental organisation and women’s rights agency. The other petitioners appear as individuals. The petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the customary practice of demand for, and payment of bride price. They allege that bride price as a condition precedent to a marriage; and a demand for, and payment of, bride price as a condition precedent to dissolution of marriage should be declared unconstitutional.

The petition is allowed, and the following declaration is made:

(1) The practice of demanding and payment of bride price as a requirement for the recognition of a valid customary marriage is unconstitutional and violates articles 31(1)(b), 31(3), 32(2) and 33(1) of the Constitution. (2) The demand for refund of bride price as a condition precedent to the dissolution of customary marriage contravenes articles 31(3)and 32(2) of the Constitution and is null and void. (3) The demand and payment of bride price dehumanises the woman in a marriage as it portrays her as a chattel that can be sold in market and subjects her to potential humiliation, cruel, torture and degrading treatment (sic!) in contravention of articles 24, 31(1)and 32(2) of the Constitution. (4) The regime of bride price subjects a woman to slavery and servitude when it makes it impossible for her to move out of an abusive marriage long after it has irretrievably broken down. This is contravention of articles 25 and 44(b) of the Constitution. (5) Each party to this petition will bear its own costs.

Documents

Uganda-case-Constitutional Court-Mifuni (U) Ltd et al-Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2007-2012.pdf
english
Download View
Ouganda-cas-Cour Constitutionnelle de Kampala-Mifumi (U) Ltd et 12 autres-Affaire 12 de 2007- 2010-fr.pdf
french
Download View