Mwalusanya, J.: The two applicants viz. Rajabu s/o Kidimwa Ng'eni and Stephano s/o Singita are seeking leave G to appeal out of time to this court. The applicants was resisted in person by the respondent Iddi s/o Adam.
The delay was slight, just about a week or so. If that was the only factor to consider, I would have allowed the application. However in matters of this kind, the most important matter to consider is the prospects of success of the intended appeal.
H In the case at hand, I find that the intended appeal has absolutely no chances of success. It is clear from the evidence on record that the applicants decided to take the law in their own hands in order to punish an alleged thief - the father of the respondent. The father of the respondent was adjudged a cattle thief by a traditional court I 'Baraza la Jadi' and thereafter the cattle of the respondent were attached to compensate the one whose cattle were allegedly stolen.
The trial court hold that the seizure was illegal and ordered the refund and some consequential damages. A
I am satisfied that the trial court was correct. Under our Constitution only a court of law can adjudge somebody to be a thief and award a compensation order. The traditional court (Baraza la Jadi) has no such jurisdiction. Therefore the attachment of the respondent's cattle was illegal. The trial court was right to make redress on the B wrong done by the Baraza la Jadi.
Since the intended appeal had no chance of success, this application must fail. It will be a waste of time to allow it. In the event, the application is dismissed with costs. C