As a logical conclusion of my pronouncements so far on this issue, I have no hesitation in finding, as I hereby do, that the custom of giving bride wealth by the groom’s family to the bride’s family does not promote inequality in marriage and does not contravene nor is it inconsistent with Article 21 (1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution. I so find. Issue (g). The gist in issue (g) is whether the demand of bride price by parents of the bride as a condition precedent of marriage fetters the free consent of the man and woman the parties to a customary marriage who are the only parties to the marriage contrary to Article 31 (3) of the Constitution. That Article provides; “31 (3) Marriage shall be entered into with the free consent of the man and woman intending to marry.” Basically and in short, the petitioners say the payment of bride price militates against the consent of the man and woman since the proceeds of the arrangement go to the parents of the bride and yet the marriage is between the bride and the bride groom. The respondents, on the other hand, base their case on what they see as the positive purpose and value of bride price in the institution of marriage. I agree with the concept of bride wealth as factor in facilitating, rather than hindering or fettering the consent of the parties to a customary marriage. The custom is intended to, inter-alia offer an opportunity to the bride groom and his relatives to express gratitude and appreciation to the parents of the bride for the caring for and upbringing of the bride in such a way that she can be appreciated by the bridegroom as one who can become a wife of his choice. The custom also strengthens the bonds that bind the two families of the bride and that of the bridegroom in the interest of the stability in the marriage. In a way, it gives a sense of fulfillment to the parties to the marriage by enhancing self esteem and self confidence in each of the parties in that the bride groom realizes he has a valuable partner in the marriage who can also rely on his assured determination and ability to ensure her wellbeing in their home. As for the bride, it is important to realize that the giving of bride wealth is only one component or aspect in a process that eventually matures into the actual marriage. In many nationalities, by the time the bride wealth is given, the bride’s consent to marry the bridegroom has already been secured and assured either expressly or by conduct through the interaction between the two families, and always with close consultations of the bride as to whether she consents to marrying the bridegroom. Intermediaries between the side of the bride and that of the bridegroom, like the Katerarume (go between) in the Kinyankole culture or the ‘Ssenga’ official aunt of the bride and the ‘Muko’ (the official brother in law to the bridegroom), in the Kiganda cultures are examples of significant intermediaries between the two sides. In many cultures, in addition to the above steps being carefully taken to ensure the bride is not forced into a marriage with a partner she does not love, the question is clearly put to either the 48