Before the primary court the Appellant successfully sued the
Respondent and two others who are not party to this appeal, for the recovery of
eleven head of cattle unlawfully seized from the Appellant by the traditional
general meeting commonly known as Ritongo. The Respondent alleged that
the son of the Appellant stole from the Respondent nine head of cattle. Upon
reporting to the village leaders, the chairman and the secretary convened a
general meeting, Ritongo and resorted on seizing the Appellant’s eleven
head of cattle, 9 as a refund of stolen ones and 2 as compensation of the costs
incurred in seizure exercise. The primary court ordered the respondent and the
two other persons to pay back or return the said 11 head of cattle to the
Appellant and to bear costs of the suit. Respondent was aggrieved by the
decision so successfully appealed to the District Court. The district court in
overturning the trial court’s decision held that, the trial court had no
jurisdiction to decide the case against the respondent as the suit was not
founded on customary law. The Appellant appealed against the decision of the
District Court