brought to book. But I do not think that such acts are caused by the customary practice of paying ‘bride price’. They are caused by greed. The petitioners made allegations that the payment of bride price is the cause of domestic violence against women. Acts of violence are criminal in nature and there are penalties under the Penal Code Act for the perpetrators. However, there is no scientific or empirical evidence that was adduced by the petitioners to prove the connection between payment of ‘bride price’ and domestic violence against women. Moreover violence against women and men who are in relationships is a worldwide phenomena and the movement to fight domestic violence started in countries where the word ‘bride price’ is not in their vocabulary. Any attempt to abolish a cultural practice in a given community must take into account the role which is played by women themselves in the formation of the cultural practice in question. In the case of payment of ‘bride price’ I have doubts whether the majority of women dislike the practice as the petitioners tried to portray. Customary marriage and the practices which go with it are protected by the Constitution and it would be unjust to slap a constitutional declaration banning the marriage and its practices across the board without the communities concerned being afforded an opportunity of being heard. The contents of the affidavits of Mr. Kakuru and Dr. Mpairwe which were deponed in defence of the Banyankore culture were not rebutted. I would accordingly dismiss the petition with no order as to costs. Dated at Kampala this…26th ….day of…March….2010 C.K.Byamugisha Justice of the Constitutional Court JUDGMENT OF S.B.K.KAVUMA, JA Introduction. I have had the advantage of reading, in draft, the judgments prepared by my Lords, L.E.M.Mukasa Kikonyogo DCJ, A.E.N. Mpagi-Bahigeine, A. Twinomujuni and C.K.Byamugisha JJA. The background to this petition together with the contents of the same and the supporting affidavits, the reply to it by the respondents and their respective affidavits in reply, the submissions of counsel for the 1st respondent and those of the second respondent who appeared personally, are very well and ably set out in those judgments. I need not fully repeat them here and where I partially do, it is for purposes of emphasis and ease of reference. Declarations sought. 23