In my opinion, therefore, the cultural practice of bride price, the payment of a sum of money or property by the prospective son-in-law to the parents of the prospective bride as a condition precedent to a lawful customary marriage, is not barred by the Constitution. It is not per se unconstitutional. The Constitution does not prohibit a voluntary, mutual agreement between a bride and a groom to enter into the bride price arrangement. A man and a woman have the constitutional right to so choose the bride price option as the way they wish to get married. In the premises, I would be declined to grant the petitioners’ request for a declaration that bride price be declared per se unconstitutional. The aforesaid notwithstanding, in the narrow instance where one or both of the man and woman wishing to get married is given no other alternative to customary marriage and a bride price agreement, such an arrangement contravenes one’s constitutional right to freely and voluntarily enter into a marriage relationship (Articles 20, 31(3)). To be clear: “Marriage shall be entered into with the free consent of the man and woman intending to marry.” Art. 31(3) (emphasis added). A man shall not be prevented from marrying the woman of his choice due to not being able to meet a bride price demand, nor shall a man or a woman be compelled to enter into a bride price marriage. A man and a woman’s constitutional right to enter into a marriage relationship (Art. 31(1)) shall not be made contingent upon the demands of a third party, the parents of the bride, for the payment of a bride price or dowry. Any payment of a bride price or dowry must be conditioned upon voluntary consent of the two parties to the marriage. Additionally, I am in agreement with the view that the customary practice of the husband demanding a refund of the bride price in the event of dissolution of the marriage demeans and undermines the dignity of a woman and is in violation of Article 33(6) of the Constitution. Moreover, the demand of a refund violates a woman’s entitlement to equal rights with the man in marriage, during marriage, and at its dissolution (See Art. 31(1)). Further, a refund demand fails to honor the wife’s unique and valuable contributions to a marriage. A woman’s contributions in a marriage cannot be equated to any sum of money or property, and any refund violates a woman’s constitutional right to be an equal co-partner to the man. The aforesaid notwithstanding, in my view, the declaration sought; that is, to declare the practice unconstitutional is not essential. The Constitution itself, under Article 50 and others can adequately take care of her grievances. The aggrieved party would be at liberty to institute criminal proceedings or a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction under the relevant law. In the result, this petition must fail and it is accordingly dismissed. Before I take leave of this judgment, I wish to comment further on the difference between ‘bride price’ and ‘dowry’. In certain African societies, the custom of presenting a gift to the bride’s family is practiced as a token of gratitude. This gratitude is for the part the bride’s family has played in taking care of the potential bride. Under this view, the gift or gifts are, under no circumstances, to be considered payment. The groom’s family is not the only one giving gifts; the bride’s family may give gifts as well. This practice arises out of the value society attaches to virginity as the fountain of life that is valued as the proper form for any marriageable woman to be in. A woman is endowed with the spring of life, and the gifts in dowry sometimes express gratitude for preservation of this spring of life without using the spring wastefully. 10