The Hon. Justices of the Supreme Court
The\r\nSupreme Court ruled that the refund of bride price by the woman’s parents or\r\nrelatives upon a failed marriage is unconstitutional. The Court however,\r\ndeclined to declare that practice of demanding for payment of bride-price as a\r\nprecondition for customary marriage as unconstitutional.
\r\n\r\n
In a 6:1 majority\r\njudgment, Hon. Justice Jotham Tumwesigye, who read the lead judgment on 7\r\nAugust 2015, observed that it’s unfair to demand a refund of bride price from\r\nthe woman’s parents after years of marriage. The Hon. Justice added\r\nthat it’s not likely that the parents of the woman would be keeping the\r\nproperty ready to refund.
\r\n\r\n
"I would declare\r\nthat the custom and practice of demand for refund of bride price after the\r\nbreakdown of a customary marriage is unconstitutional as it violates articles\r\n31 (1) (b) and 31 (1). It should be accordingly be prohibited under articles 32\r\n(2) of the Constitution,” ruled Hon. Justice Tumwesigye.
\r\n\r\n
The Chief Justice, Hon.\r\nJustice Bart Katureebe who was among the six justices who agreed with Hon. Justice\r\nTumwesigye, observed in his judgment that the refund of bride process connotes\r\nthat the woman in the marriage was on some sort of a loan.
\r\n\r\n
"Refunding\r\ncompromises the dignity of the women contrary to article 33 (1) of the\r\nConstitution…the custom of the refund of bride price is unconstitutional,” held\r\nthe Hon. Chief Justice.
He added that even\r\nin a sale, the cliché is that goods once sold cannot be returned or goods once\r\nused cannot be refunded and if that cannot be done in respect of common goods\r\nlike cattle among others, it cannot apply to women.
\r\n\r\n
The other Justices\r\nwho agreed with the lead judgment were; Hon. Justice John Wilson\r\nTsekooko, Hon. Lady Justice Christine Kitumba, Hon. Justice Benjamin Odoki\r\nand Hon. Justice Galdino Okello. Hon. Lady Justice Dr. Esther Kisaakye gave a\r\ndissenting judgment. The judgment of the\r\ncourt arose from an appeal that Mifumi, a non-governmental organization and 12\r\nothers lost before the Constitutional Court in 2010.
\r\n\r\n
The\r\njudgment stems from a 2007 petition filed in the Constitutional Court by Mifumi\r\nUganda Limited, a local Women’s rights lobby group, among others. Their main\r\nissues were women’s equality, whether refund of bride price was Constitutional,\r\nand whether bride price caused domestic violence.
However, a 2010 decision of the Constitutional Court, upheld payment of\r\nbride price.
The Constitutional Court ruled then that MIFUMI failed to adduce scientific\r\nevidence to prove the connection between bride price and domestic violence,\r\nwhich prompted them to appeal to the Supreme Court.
\r\n\r\n
In a\r\nmajority judgment of 4:1, the Constitutional Court held that there are diverse\r\ncauses of spousal abuse and that court could not say with certainty that\r\nbride-price is unconstitutional on that basis.
\r\n\r\n
Find\r\nrelated stories:
\r\n\r\n
http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Supreme-Court-declares-refund-of-bride-price-unconstitutional/-/688334/2822316/-/11wwv9o/-/index.html
\r\n\r\n
http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/671888-bride-price-refund-declared-illegal.html
Mifumi v AG Judgment Aug 5 2015 and _Dessenting _Judgment_2_.pdf
Posted 7th, August 2015
