Article 126 (1) of the Constitution, in my view, liberates African Customary Law from that degrading position explained above and commands in very clear terms that all law, including Customary Law, has to be administered in conformity with the norms, values and aspirations of the people. Such approach should be within the context of the thinking of progressive people and societies. See the Court of Appeal for Uganda in Attorney General Vs Osotraco Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2002 where the court stated:“The law has to be construed in line with the thinking or norms of progressive societies” I am of the strong view that the thinking, the norms, values and aspirations of the progressive people and societies in Uganda dictate that the liberal approach to taking judicial notice of African Customary Law in general and the custom of giving and refunding bride wealth in particular in Uganda be fully embraced. This, as I have shown above in this judgment, is what has happened in Tanzania and Kenya by legislation. This is what is called for both in the letter and the spirit of Article 126(1) and 2(e) of the Constitution. Given that over the nearly half a century of independence this country’s courts of judicature have almost wholly transformed from being predominantly manned by European judges to being manned by Uganda judicial officers knowledgeable in African Customary Law, there is no reason why the test stated above is not applied by the courts in taking judicial notice of any aspect of that law in appropriate cases, just as they do in respect of other laws including common law both local and received or applied. In conclusion on this issue (b), I, therefore, find that the giving of bride wealth as a requirement of a valid customary marriage and the refund of bride wealth as a requirement of a valid dissolution of such marriage as known and practiced in various parts of Uganda is so notoriously known and appreciated that it can and has actually been in the past in numerous cases taken judicial notice of without the requirement of any further proof. It should be so taken without any hesitation. Issue (c). The gist of issue (c) is whether bride price means different things in different cultures of Uganda such that there can be no uniform interpretation of the custom. From the affidavit evidence on record and from my own knowledge of the custom of payment and demand of a refund of bride price as practiced in Uganda the true position is that the custom and practice may be referred to or called by different names in different nationalities in the country. What is clear however is that there are well universally known and accepted attributes of the custom and practice. These are:(a) it is either a sum of money or an amount of property, (b) it is demanded by the parents/relatives of the bride as a pre-condition to marrying the bride under customary law. 43