The petitioners further averred that the demand for refund of bride price as a condition precedent for the dissolution of a customary marriage contravenes article 31 of the Constitution which provides for free consent of the parties to a marriage. It was further averred that the demand for bride price by parents of the prospective bride from prospective sons –in-law in as much as it portrays the woman as an article in a market for sale amounts to degrading treatment contravenes article 24 of the Constitution which guarantees that every person shall be treated with dignity. The petitioners sought the following declarations: 1. That the custom and practice of demand and payment of bride price as a condition sine qua non of a valid customary marriage as practiced by several tribes in Uganda is unconstitutional. 2. The custom and practice for refund of bride price as a condition precedent to a valid dissolution of a customary marriage is unconstitutional 3. Any other or further declaration that the court may grant. 4. No order as to costs. The petition was supported by several affidavits deponed by Roselyn Karugonjo Segawa, Pereptua Nyamwenge Ngwicarach Erusi, Abbo Florence, Atimango Jeress, Sabiti Bernard, Grace Aware, Fr Lawrence Sendegeya, Achieng Margaret and Felicity Atuki Turner among others. The respondents filed separate answers opposing to the petition. The first respondent averred that the custom and practice of payment of bride price as a requirement for the recognition of a customary marriage or the refund of the same at the dissolution of a customary marriage is constitutional and does not contravene Article 32(1) (3) of the Constitution. He further averred that the custom of payment and refund of bride price are constitutionally protected by the provisions of Article 37 of the Constitution. He contended that the law permits and recognizes various types of marriage which are a reasonable alternative to customary marriage and in as far as parties intending to marry are adults who choose the option of a customary marriage fully knowing that it imposes these customary requirements. Such parties are taken to have consented to the requirements of payment of bride price. This answer was supported by an affidavit of Margaret Nabakooza, a Senior State Attorney in the Attorney General’s Chambers. The second respondent in his answer stated that he is a Munyankore by tribe and has an interest in the subject matter of the petition in as far it relates to the traditions, customs and cultural norms of the Banyankole. He averred that there is no customary law that is generally applicable in Uganda as a whole. He further averred that bride price is a very broad term that covers different traditions and cultures and as such cannot be described or regulated or understood to cover every person, community or ethnic groups in Uganda in the same way. He asserted that the word bride price is derogatory and racist, having been coined by white slave traders, adventurers and missionaries who had no knowledge of African culture, norms and traditions. 18