Uganda is a custom of sufficient notoriety that has been taken judicial notice of by courts in Uganda without the requirement of further proof. In holding this view, I adopt the liberal approach. I further adopt the definition of the word ‘notorious’ as given by Black’s law Dictionary in preference to that prescribed by the rule in Angu Vs Attah (supra). Black’s law Dictionary defines notorious as :“Generally known and talked of, well or widely known, forming a part of common knowledge, universally recognized”. The Constitution. Having held that in my view, the custom of bride wealth as practiced in Uganda has been judicially noticed under the Evidence Act, I now turn to the Constitution in further fortification of that view. At the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, a new and revolutionary approach to the exercise of judicial power by the courts of this country was adopted as provided for in Article 126 of the Constitution already quoted above. Article 2of the Constitution provides:“2 Supremacy of the Constitution. (1) This Constitution is the supreme law of Uganda and shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout Uganda. (2) …………………………….. Clearly, by this Article, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The same Constitution under Article 126 (2) (e) enjoins the courts of this country to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. The province of the Evidence Act is, in my view, to lay down evidential and procedural rules as to what matter is or is not admissible for purposes of establishing facts in dispute and as to the manner in which such matter may be placed before court. That Act is not concerned with direct establishment of relevant principles of substantive law. It is mainly concerned with facts in their wide sense. What the Act provides for, therefore, in my view, are matters of technicalities rather than substantive law. See An Introduction of the India Evidence Act, 2nd Edition 1904 by Sir James Stephen. See also Stephen Uglow in his Trial Materials 2nd Edition (Sweat and Maxiwell) pg 2 where he observes:“evidence and procedure are among the most technical and abstruse areas of law.” 41