He denied that customary marriage is concluded by the sell of the bride and as such customary marriage does not contravene Article 21(1) (2) of the Constitution. He further asserted that customary marriage among the Langi, Japadhola and the Banyankore is entered into freely and with the full consent of the parties and as such it does not contravene Article 31(1) of the Constitution. The answer of the second respondent was supported by two affidavits deponed by himself and Dr Mpairwe. The following issues were framed for our determination: 1. Whether the petition discloses issues for constitutional interpretation. 2. Whether payment of “bride price” before marriage and its refund during divorce are customs judicially noticed requiring no further proof. 3. Whether bride price means different things in the cultures of Uganda such that the Constitutional Court cannot make a uniform interpretation of the custom. 4. Whether ‘okujuga’ in Ankole does not mean payment of ‘bride price’ and whether ‘okuzimura’ in Ankole does not mean refund of ‘bride price’. 5. Whether ‘bride price’ is not commonly practiced by all tribes in Uganda. 6. Whether the custom of payment of ‘bride price’ by the groom’s family to the bride’s family promotes inequality in marriage contrary to Article 21(1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution. 7. Whether the demand for ‘bride price’ by parents of the bride as a condition precedent to a marriage fetters the free consent of the man and woman who intend to marry who are the only parties to a marriage contrary to the provisions of Article 31(3) of the Constitution which demands that men and women shall be accorded equal rights in marriage and its dissolution. 8. Whether the demand and payment of ‘bride price’ as a condition precedent to a customary marriage and the demand of the refund of ‘bride price’ as a condition to the dissolution of a customary marriage are customs that are practiced in pursuit of a person’s culture which rights are guaranteed in Article 37 of the Constitution. Mr Rwakafuzi and Ms Atuki-Tana represented the petitioners while Ms Patricia Muteesi represented the first respondent. The second respondent, Mr Kenneth Kakuru represented himself. In his submissions Mr Rwakafuzi stated that it is not necessary to have a common definition of ‘bride price’ for the whole country but what is important is to have a common understanding. He stated that ‘bride price’ applies to the whole Country and the results of the petition will affect the whole country. He cited section 55 of the Evidence Act which provides that a matter which has been judicially noticed need not be proved. Learned counsel went on to state article 21(1) (2) (3) guarantee equality of persons in all spheres including marriage. He claimed that the culture of ‘bride price’ breaches this concept because the bride is supposed to be paid for by the groom. He further claimed that customary marriage begins with superiority of man over a woman. He went on to state that payment of ‘bride price’ 19