Authored By: Edwongu Lekos Odidi
Uganda Christian University
ABSTRACT
The application of the feminist legal theory has brought about conflict because of the imbalance in the intellectual point of view in society. The violation of women’s inherent rights under the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda has been contested over countless years by a masculine outlook and a feminist outlook.
This article veers the application of the feminist legal theory towards an acceptable outcome. The hinderances dealt with by court must lead to sustainable development of the law. The applicable reforms and measures reached should be technically or ideologically distant from negatively affecting the movement of the past, current and future legal trends in Uganda.
INTRODUCTION
What caused the reality experienced by women to be imbued by violations of the relevant Constitutional provisions[1]? The relevant Constitutional provisions contain inherent rights allocated to women so as to solve hardships brought about by distinct actions.
The clash of the masculine and feminist outlook has resulted in their mixture to attain a mature legal system[2]. Such that, rules and discretion, law and equity, rule and standard, positive laws and ethical principles, logic and practical reasoning, professional judges and lay judges, subjectivity and objectivity are mixed in the circumstances[3]. This mixture should portray a change in the character of the law, more standards and less rules, more practical reasoning and less logic, maintenance of the law’s determinacy, objectivity and impersonality with less anxiety[4].
This article explores the imbalance in the application of the feminist legal theory in Uganda as shown by the past, current and future legal trends. This is expounded by the existing legal framework and current law, case law analysis or critical evaluation and analysis in the circumstances.
Feminists have struggled to subvert male domination by making the populace aware it exists and identifying ways to neutralize it[5]. The law has faced scrutiny for ignoring interests of females thereby confusing the articulation of a unified and structured intellectual point of view[6]. The feminist legal theory encompasses a methodology that accounts for the vulnerability of women to unequal opportunities and discrimination by existing legal standards and concepts[7]. It takes responsibility for any violation of the relevant lawful provisions[8]. It also advances sensitization of the masses to improve the movement of the legal trends[9].
The focus of this legal theory must specify the activities of women which are prone to violation, apply the relevant lawful provisions against the violation, determine the actions being contested with sound law practice, ensure sustainable development of the law governing these disputed areas, put in place applicable reforms and measures to counteract any technicalities or ideologies that may crop up, safeguard the movement of the past, current and future legal trends, and contain the catastrophes that characterize each legal trend[10].
The article proceeds as follows. Section II sets out the existing legal framework and current law. Section III analyses the relevant case law in the circumstances. Section IV proposes a framework for reform in Ugandan context.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CURRENT LAW
Whether legal trends in Uganda show an imbalance in applying the Feminist Legal Theory?
The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended
It is submitted that fundamental rights and freedoms of an individual are inherent[11].
It is emphasized that every organ or agency of government and person must respect, uphold and promote rights and freedoms of individuals and groups[12].
It is suggested that equal protection of the law should be enjoyed by all persons[13]. This is implemented before and under the law in all spheres of political, economics, social and cultural life[14].
It is provided that persons must not be discriminated[15]. This usually happens on the grounds of sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, social or economic standing, political opinion or disability[16]. In this case, this applies to women facing discrimination in their capacities.
It is established that giving different treatment to different persons attributable only or mainly to their respective description by sex, descriptions by sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, social or economic standing, political opinion or disability is referred to as discrimination[17].
It is stipulated that Parliament must enact laws necessary for implementing policies and programmes[18]. This should only aim at redressing social, economic, educational, or other imbalance in society[19].
It is stated that Parliament must enact laws necessary to make provisions required or authorized to be made[20].
It is submitted that Parliament must enact laws necessary in making provisions for acceptable and demonstrably justified matters in a free and democratic society[21].
It is provided that the provisions of the Constitution are not inconsistent with Article 21[22].
It is submitted that affirmative action must be taken in favour of marginalized groups on the basis of gender, age, disability or any other reason[23]. Such is the intention of history, tradition or custom so as to redress imbalances which exist against these marginalized groups[24].
It is submitted that the prohibition of laws, cultures, customs and traditions should be sought when the dignity, welfare or interest of women or any other marginalized group is undermined[25]. The status of women and any other marginalized group was safeguarded[26].
The Equal Opportunities Commission was established[27]. It’s composition and functions were to be determined by an Act of Parliament[28].
It is provided that Parliament must make laws to give full effect to Article 32[29].
It is submitted that women must be accorded full and equal dignity of the person with men[30].
It is suggested that the necessary facilities and opportunities must enhance the welfare of women[31]. With these, the State may enable women realize the full potential and advancement[32].
It is established that the State must protect the women[33]. Women’s unique status and maternal functions in society must be accounted for[34].
It is submitted women must have equal opportunities in political, economic and social activities[35]. This is the right to equal treatment with men[36].
It is submitted that the right to affirmative action redresses imbalances created by history, tradition or custom[37]. The women have this right[38].
It is provided that a person must not prejudice the fundamental or other human rights and freedoms of others or the public interest[39].
It is suggested that public interest must not permit any limitation of the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms[40]. This limitation relates to what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society[41]. It may also be provided in the Constitution[42].
It is submitted that the fundamental and other human rights and freedoms must be regarded without excluding the others[43]. This inference relates to the rights, duties, declarations and guarantees in the circumstances[44].
It is provided that a person whose fundamental or other right or freedom is infringed or threatened must be entitled to apply to a competent court for redress[45]. These rights or freedoms are guaranteed by the Constitution[46].
It submitted that a person or organization may seek a remedy for a violation of human rights of another person or group[47].
It is suggested that Parliament must make laws to enforce rights and freedoms[48].
It is stipulated that court is mandated to adjudicate cases by administering substantive justice without undue technicalities[49]. The cases may be civil or criminal but always subject to the law[50].
The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Statutory Instrument 31 of 2019. (Uganda).
It is submitted that the right to institute court action must be promoted[51]. This right only arises when the fundamental right or other human right or freedom[52] has been violated or there is a threat of likely violation[53].
Fundamental and other human rights and freedoms refer to any of the rights provided in Chapter four and Article 45 of the Constitution[54].
It is provided that institution of an action is inevitable when there has been an infringement or threatened infringement of a fundamental right or other human right or freedom[55].
It is stated that a person may bring an action to court for redress while acting in her interest[56].
It is submitted that a person bringing an action to court for redress may act in the interest of another[57].
It is established that a person may bring actions to court for redress on behalf of a group or class of persons[58]. This is done either as a member or in their interest[59].
It is provided that a person may bring an action to court for redress while acting in the public interest[60].
It is stipulated that an association or organization may bring an action to court for redress while acting in the interest of its members[61].
It is submitted that the court may grant reliefs appropriately to aggrieved persons[62]. The grant of relief must only occur when certain considerations are taken into account[63].
The Civil Procedure Act, (1929). Cap. 282. (Uganda).
It is submitted that suits must be instituted in the manner prescribed by the rules[64].
It is provided that the inherent power of court must be saved in order to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice to prevent abuse of the process of the court[65].
The Judicature Act, 1996. Cap. 16. (Uganda).
It is submitted that the High Court is vested with discretion to grant any remedies laid out in the Constitution, this Act or any written law so as to avoid multiplicity of legal proceedings[66].
CASE LAW ANALYSIS
Mifumi (U) Ltd and 12 others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru[67].
Brief Facts;
The Appellants were dissatisfied with the decision of the Constitutional Court. They challenged the constitutionality of the custom of paying bride price as a precondition to contracting a valid customary marriage[68]. They also challenged demanding for refund of bride price as an essential pre-requisite for the valid dissolution of a customary marriage[69].
Legal Issues;
Whether the Constitutional Court erred by declining to take judicial notice of the custom of bride price in customary marriage and its refund when the marriage breaks down[70]?
Whether bride price promotes inequality in marriage[71]?
Whether bride price fetters the free consent of persons intending to marry[72]?
Whether the learned Justices of the Constitutional Court erred in law when they held that it was not essential to declare the practice of demand for refund of bride price unconstitutional[73]?
Court’s reasoning;
The court held that bride price as practiced by the different ethnic groups in Uganda is unconstitutional because it denies women their constitutional rights[74]. The issue of bride price must be considered in its generic form and not in its particularized form[75].
“The payment of bride price in customary marriage is overrated by the appellants as a significant factor in the promotion of inequality and violence against women as speculated under the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda[76].”[77]
The payment of bride price does not fetter the free consent of persons intending to marry[78].
“The custom and practice of demanding for refund of bride price after the breakdown of a customary marriage is unconstitutional.”[79]
Legal Principle;
The various characteristics of the issue of bride price must be determined in order to consider whether Constitutional rights have been violated or not[80].
“There is no sufficient justification to deny the enjoyment and practice of the custom of bride price to the people that cherish it.”[81]
“The cultural rites of bride price are not required for free consent of parties to a customary marriage.”[82]
“This custom of refunding bride price devalues the worth, respect and dignity of women and it is unfair to the parents and relatives who are not expected to keep the property ready for refund.”[83]
Relevance;
The legal trend in this case reveals the turmoil faced by women in the reality they live in Uganda, however, the relevant Constitutional provisions bestow upon them inherent rights[84]. These inherent rights protect women from any violations as illustrated above[85].
Uganda Association of Women Lawyers and 5 others versus Attorney General[86].
Facts;
This petition challenged the consistency of several provisions of the then Divorce Act[87] with the provisions of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda[88].
Legal Issues;
Whether the impugned sections of the Divorce Act are in contravention of the Constitution as alleged[89]?
Court’s reasoning;
The court established the impossibility to reconcile the impugned provisions of the Divorce Act[90] with the rights to equality and non-discrimination between men and women under the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda[91].
Legal Principle;
The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended protects the citizens from inequality and discrimination between men and women[92].
Relevance;
The legal trend in this case portrays the defeat of the impugned provisions of an Act of Parliament by the relevant provisions of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda[93].
CRITICAL EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS
The balance of applying the feminist legal theory in Uganda is maintained by the relevant provisions of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. This is shown by the past, current and future legal trends put in place by the existing legal framework and current law. The precedents entailed in the case law analysis prove that the violations in those circumstances can be related to any other instances to reach an acceptable settlement.
The masculine outlook in society will always violate the feminist outlook in order to gain the advantage in the intellectual point of view of society. The gap identified in this article is between the reality of women’s life and the relevant Constitutional provisions. A woman’s life is characterized by a struggle for dominance in all sectors where their presence is being felt. The past, current and future legal trends are intertwined by court to prove that women’s rights have been violated and the repercussions have negatively affected the victims.
CONCLUSION
The feminist legal theory is the reality women live in the contemporary society of Uganda. The imbalance in the application of the feminist legal theory is curbed by the existing legal framework and current law. The past, current and future legal trends must be kept up to standard with the relevant Constitutional provisions. This standard ensures sustainable development of the law and the availability of applicable reforms and measures on a case-to-case basis. In due course, the checks and balances set up in each jurisdiction should make the world a better place for women in Uganda.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCE(S):
Textbooks:
Richard Allen Posner (1990). The Problems of Jurisprudence.
Austin Chinhengo. (2000). Essential Jurisprudence. Second Edition.
List of Cases:
Mifumi (U) Ltd and 12 others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014.
Uganda Association of Women Lawyers and 5 others versus Attorney General, The Constitutional Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2003.
Legislation:
The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended.
The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, Statutory Instrument 31 of 2019. (Uganda).
The Judicature Act. 1996, Cap. 16. (Uganda).
The Civil Procedure Act, 1929. Cap. 282. (Uganda).
The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1. (Uganda).
The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 33 of 2019. (Uganda)
Divorce Act, 1904. Cap. 249. (Uganda)
[1] Richard Allen Posner. (1990). The Problems of Jurisprudence. Page 405.
[2] Richard Allen Posner. (1990). The Problems of Jurisprudence. Page 405.
[3] Richard Allen Posner. (1990). The Problems of Jurisprudence. Page 405.
[4] Richard Allen Posner. (1990). The Problems of Jurisprudence. Page 405.
[5] Austin Chinhengo. (2000). Essential Jurisprudence. Second Edition. The Nature of Feminism, Page 115-116.
[6] Austin Chinhengo. (2000). Essential Jurisprudence. Second Edition. The Nature of Feminism. Page 115-116.
[7] Austin Chinhengo. (2000). Essential Jurisprudence. Second Edition. The Methodology of Feminist Legal Theory, Page 117.
[8] Austin Chinhengo. (2000). Essential Jurisprudence. Second Edition. The Methodology of Feminist Legal Theory, Page 117.
[9] Austin Chinhengo. (2000). Essential Jurisprudence. Second Edition. The Methodology of Feminist Legal Theory, Page 117.
[10] Austin Chinhengo. (2000). Essential Jurisprudence. Second Edition. The Focus of Feminist Legal Theory, Page 117-118.
[11] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 20(1).
[12] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 20(2).
[13] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 21(1).
[14] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 21(1).
[15] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 21(2).
[16] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 21(2).
[17] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 21(3).
[18] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 21(4)(a).
[19] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 21(4)(a).
[20] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 21(4)(b).
[21] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 21(4)(c).
[22] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 21(5).
[23] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(1).
[24] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(1).
[25] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(2).
[26] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(2).
[27] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(3).
[28] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(3).
[29] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(5).
[30] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 33(1).
[31] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(2).
[32] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(2).
[33] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(3).
[34] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(3).
[35] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(4).
[36] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(4).
[37] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(5).
[38] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 32(5).
[39] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 43(1).
[40] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 43(2)(c).
[41] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 43(2)(c).
[42] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 43(2)(c).
[43] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 45.
[44] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 45.
[45] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 50(1).
[46] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 50(1).
[47] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 50(2).
[48] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 50(4).
[49] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 126(2)(e).
[50] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 126(2)(e).
[51] The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Statutory Instrument 31 of 2019. (Uganda). Section 3(a).
[52] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Chapter four.
[53] The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Statutory Instrument 31 of 2019. (Uganda). Section 3(a).
[54] The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Statutory Instrument 31 of 2019. (Uganda). Section 4.
[55] The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Statutory Instrument 31 of 2019. (Uganda). Section 5(1)(a).
[56] The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Statutory Instrument 31 of 2019. (Uganda). Section 6(1)(a).
[57] The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Statutory Instrument 31 of 2019. (Uganda). Section 6(1)(b).
[58] The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Statutory Instrument 31 of 2019. (Uganda). Section 6(1)(c).
[59] The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Statutory Instrument 31 of 2019. (Uganda). Section 6(1)(c).
[60] The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Statutory Instrument 31 of 2019. (Uganda). Section 6(1)(d).
[61] The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Statutory Instrument 31 of 2019. (Uganda). Section 6(1)(e).
[62] The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Statutory Instrument 31 of 2019. (Uganda). Section 11(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f).
[63] The Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. Statutory Instrument 31 of 2019. (Uganda). Section 11(2)(a), (b).
[64] The Civil Procedure Act, (1929). Cap. 282. (Uganda). Section 19: The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1. (Uganda): The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 33 of 2019. (Uganda).
[65] The Civil Procedure Act, (1929). Cap. 282. (Uganda). Section 98.
[66] The Judicature Act, 1996. Cap. 16. (Uganda). Section 37.
[67] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014.
[68] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 2.
[69] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 2.
[70] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 7.
[71] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 18.
[72] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 28.
[73] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 38.
[74] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 18.
[75] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 18.
[76] The 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as amended. Article 21 (1), (2) and (3).
[77] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 28.
[78] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 38.
[79] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 47. (The violation is under Articles 31(1)(b) and 31(1) while the prohibition is under Article 32(2) of the Constitution.).
[80] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 18.
[81] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 27.
[82] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 37.
[83] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014. Page 44-45.
[84] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014.
[85] Mifumi (U) Ltd and Others versus Attorney General and Kenneth Kakuru, The Supreme Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 02 0f 2014.
[86] Uganda Association of Women Lawyers and 5 others versus Attorney General, The Constitutional Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2003.
[87] Divorce Act, 1904. Cap. 249. (Uganda).
[88] Uganda Association of Women Lawyers and 5 others versus Attorney General, The Constitutional Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2003. Page 13.
[89] Uganda Association of Women Lawyers and 5 others versus Attorney General, The Constitutional Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2003. Page 15.
[90] Divorce Act, 1904. Cap. 249. (Uganda).
[91] Uganda Association of Women Lawyers and 5 others versus Attorney General, The Constitutional Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2003. Page 24.
[92] Uganda Association of Women Lawyers and 5 others versus Attorney General, The Constitutional Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2003.
[93] Uganda Association of Women Lawyers and 5 others versus Attorney General, The Constitutional Court of Uganda at Kampala, Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2003.
