fetters equality in marriage and it affects the free consent of man and woman who are supposed to be together. He submitted that although Article 37 allows a person to enjoy his culture, the enjoyment should not breach the law or the Constitution. He invited court to declare the practice unconstitutional. On her part Ms Atuki submitted that the practice contributes to violence against women and it has far reaching social, economic consequences for women. She referred to the affidavit of Awor Debra and her experience with her husband to buttress her argument. As for the refund of bride price on the dissolution of customary marriage, she submitted that the refund acts as a threat against women. She further submitted that the custom is repugnant and incompatible with the Constitution and the United Nations Convention of violence against women which Uganda is a signatory to. In reply, Ms Muteesi submitted that the Constitution is written for all the people of Uganda and was meant to accommodate different cultures, beliefs and aspirations. She pointed out that the petition is seeking to remove a constitutional right which is protected by Article 37 of the Constitution. She further pointed out that the petition is not seeking to declare a certain law or act to be infringing a right but that a certain right is infringing on other rights. She claimed that the custom of payment of ‘bride price’ and the refund are constitutionally protected by Article 37. She went on to submit that the Uganda laws permit and recognize various types of marriages which are a reasonable alternative to customary marriages. It was her contention that in as far as the parties intending to marry choose the option of a customary marriage knowing very well that it imposes certain requirements; they consent to abide by those requirements. It was her submissions that there is nobody in Uganda who is bound to marry under any system or one who is forced to do so. Furthermore learned Senior State Attorney submitted, all marriages have legal requirements and they all cost money. She claimed that Government has put in place laws to cover aspirations of all the people of Uganda. She prayed for the dismissal of the petition. The second respondent in his submissions stated that the petition does not disclose any matter for interpretation. He stated that if the petitioners are aggrieved, they should have gone to the High Court under Article 50 of the Constitution. He stated that customary law is not written and its existence, its scope and all the ingredients of a particular custom has to be proved and before it can be proved, it must pass the repugnant test under section 15 of the Judicature Act. He argued that evidence is required to show that the matter is so notorious to get judicial notice. He further submitted that there is no such thing as ‘bride price’ and there is purchase or sale. He further stated that a daughter being given in marriage is not a sale. Among Banyankore counsel stated, there is no such thing as ‘bride price’. It is called ‘okujuga’ which has no English equivalent. He referred to the affidavit of Dr Mpairwe in which the deponent stated that bride price is a very small percentage of marriage expenses. 20