Answer by Respondents In reply, both respondents opposed the petition. The Attorney General, who is the first respondent, with Mr. Kakuru as the 2nd respondent, denied that the custom and practice of payment of bride price or dowry as a requirement for the recognition of a customary marriage, or the refund thereof as a requirement for the dissolution of a customary marriage is unconstitutional. It was pointed out that the custom of payment of bride price is constitutionally protected by the provisions of Article 37 of the Constitution. The Court was prayed to dismiss the petition. Issues At the joint scheduling conferencing, the parties agreed to the following eight issues: 1. Whether the petition discloses issues for constitutional interpretation. 2. Whether payment of “bride price” before marriage and its refund during divorce are customs judicially noticed requiring no further proof. 3. Whether bride price means different things in the cultures of Uganda such that the Constitutional Court cannot make a uniform interpretation of the custom. 4. Whether ‘okujuga’ in Ankole does not mean refund of ‘bride price’. 5. Whether ‘bride price’ is not commonly practiced by all tribes in Uganda. 6. Whether the custom of payment of ‘bride price’ by the groom’s family to the bride’s family promotes inequality in marriage contrary to Article 21(1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution. 7. 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 intend to marry who are the only parties to a marriage contrary to the provisions of Article 31(3) of the Constitution which demands that men and women shall be accorded equal rights in marriage and its dissolution. 8. Whether the demand and payment of ‘bride price’ as a condition precedent to a customary marriage and the demand of the refund of ‘bride price’ as a condition to the dissolution of a customary marriage are customs that are practiced in pursuit of a person’s culture which rights are guaranteed in Article 37 of the Constitution. The first petitioner is represented by Mr. Rwakafuzi assisted by Ms. Atuki the Attorney General, the 1st Respondent is represented by Ms. Mutesi. Mr. Kakuru, the 2nd Respondent, appears in person. 4