The Observations. I accept the concern expressed by the second respondent that the words ‘bride price’ were coined by Europeans with a deficiency of knowledge and appreciation of African culture and Customary Law. To such people the exchange of bride wealth from the side of the bridegroom to that of the bride in a customary marriage arrangement was nothing but a payment of a ‘price’ by the bridegroom to the parents of the bride in a ‘transaction’ in which the bride is commoditified or portrayed as an ‘article’ for sale to the bridegroom in payment of the “purchase price”, they termed ‘bride price’. This, as I will show later in this judgment was an error. It resulted from a serious misconception of African Customary Law and practices in the area of customary marriages. Suffice it to say for now that I prefer the use of the words ‘bride wealth’ to ‘bride price’ and I will use bride wealth whenever I find it appropriate to do so. I also prefer to refer to the act of exchanging bride wealth between the side of the bridegroom and that of the bride as “giving” rather than ‘paying’. This is the essence of the use of ‘bride wealth’ in customary marriages and the definitions of the words used in relation thereto. The concerned words will be given and defined later in this judgment. The background. Over the years, courts in Africa generally and in Uganda in particular have had two different attitudes towards the question of proof of African customs. One attitude has been one of extreme caution by requiring strict proof of a custom, many times, before it is accepted as one which can be taken judicial notice of. I, for purposes of convenience, refer to this attitude as the traditional approach. The other attitude has been marked by some degree of flexibility whereby African Customary Law can be more or less treated as any other law and can be taken judicial notice of, without the requirement for further proof or at least, by accepting as sufficient, the knowledge of those who are involved in the administration of justice like African assessors and judicial officers conversant with the law in this area. I call this the liberal approach. During the days of colonialism in Africa, superior courts of law, were manned by judicial officers of European origin. They had little or no knowledge or appreciation of local African customs and how they operated among the indigenous people. The challenge to such judicial officers was how to administer customary law in those circumstances. The Traditional approach articulated. To the majority of colonial judicial officers, the answer was in adopting the traditional approach. This approach is well articulated in the following statements and judicial pronouncements. “Although customary law is undoubtedly part of the law of the various East African Countries, it has not, certainly in the past, been accepted that the courts can take judicial notice of such law in the same way as they can of the statute, and received English law, the general attitude of the courts has been to regard such law in much the 32