Found 215 search results

American Pelagic Fishing Company, L.P. v. United States

2004

The plaintiff is American Pelagic, a company whose President and sole shareholder, purchased a large boat, the Atlantic Star, in 1996 to transform it into a massive fishing vessel. In 1997, NMFS issued both a valid Atlantic mackerel permit and a Northeast Multispecies fish permit to the vessel. In 1997 and 1998, some riders to appropriations bills limited the size of the ships and revoked the permits that had been issued. NMFS later promulgated regulations reflecting this prohibition. As a result, the Atlantic Star was unable to receive a permit to fish in any U.S. fishery within the EEZ. American Pelagic brought suit alleging that the 1997 and 1998 Appropriations Acts revoking its permits and barring it from receiving future permits effected a temporary taking of the Atlantic Star. Specifically, American Pelagic asserted that it had a property right in its fishery permits and authorizations that was taken by legislation, and that the U.S. had taken all economically viable use of the vessel without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. The lower court ruled in its favor, determining that the fishery had possessed a property interest in using the vessel to fish and that a regulatory taking had occurred. The United States now appeals. The court determined that the reasoning in Mitchell Arms and Conti applied to this case. In Conti, the court found that no property interest could be held in a swordfishing permit because it could not be assigned, sold, or transferred; because it did not confer exclusive fishing privileges; and because the government at all times retained the right to revoke, suspend, or modify it. The court also determined that as of 1996, when the Atlantic Star was purchased, the Magnuson Act and the attendant regulatory scheme precluded any permitted fisherman from possessing a property right in his vessel to fish in the EEZ. This was because, in passing the Magnuson Act, Congress explicitly assumed sovereign rights over Atlantic mackerel and herring in the EEZ. In short, the court found no right to fish in the EEZ inhered in American Pelagic?s title when it acquired the Atlantic Star. The court therefore reversed the finding that the revocation of Americans Pelagic?s permits and authorization letter constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment.

Fahidha Minja Kabarabara and Mohamed Thomas versus the Republic - No. 02 & 03 of 2007

2009

The appellants were arrested following information that they were in possession of buffalo meat. The appellants disputed any knowledge about the meat affirming they had no license for hunting. They were found in the house where the meat was because they took rest for the night. The meat belonged to the landlord and the appellants alleged that the landlord gave bribe to the police of Tshs. 150,000 that is why he was not charged. The appellants were convicted for alleged being found jointly in possession of government trophies of buffalo and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. There was no corroborated evidence apart from that given by policemen. Appeal allowed, convictions quashed and sentences set aside. The Court ordered immediate release of the appellants from prison.

Abilah Hassani Mfaume versus the Republic - No. 02 of 2008

2010

The appellant was found in possession of a weighing scale while drying meat identified by the witnesses using their experience to be that of a zebra. There was no skin or head to support such claim. The appellant denied that the meat was zebras claiming it to be of hartebeest which was hunted under permit of a friend not present at the crime scene. The appellant was convicted for the counts charged and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. He appealed on the ground that he was not given the right to call witnesses which breached natural justice rules. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence. The judge ordered the immediate release of the appellant from prison.

Maduhu Joseph versus the Republic - No. 03 of 2015

2015

On the material date, at 22.00 hrs at Tingirima village within Bunda District in Mara Region, the accused was found in the possession of skins of dik-dik, two pieces of dried meat of the wildebeest and a piece of elephant tusk, after an emergence search in his house, a house owned by his mother and elder brother while he was sleeping. He was therefore arrested, convicted and sentenced for 20 years imprisonment. This was an appeal against the original economic case no. 177 of 2013 of the Bunda District court, where the accused was alleged to have been found in possession of skins of dik-dik, two pieces of wildebeest, two pieces of dried meat of the wildebeest and a piece of elephant tusk and therefore charged and convicted of an offence of being in possession of government trophies and failure to report the possession of the government trophies mentioned above worth Tshs. 4,672,000/=. The appeal was allowed, the sentences were set aside and the court ordered to release the appellant from prison.

Wesiko Malyoki versus the Republic - No. 09 of 2015

2015

On 17/03/2012, the game officers at Ikorongo Grumeti Game reserve heard bullets loud fired in the game reserve by unknown persons. The game officers then traced the poachers but didn?t find them. On 28/03/2012, the game officers got information through the ward officer that the appellant and four others have confessed to have entered the game reserve and hunted six elephants. The ward officer was informed of the incident through complaints lodged to him by the accused, that the appellant was indebted to his colleagues after the sale of elephant?s tusks. After arresting the accused, carcasses of the killed elephants were found through the lead of the accused. This was an appeal against the original economic case no. 18 of 2012 of the Bunda District court, where the appellant was jointly and together charged with four others, all the four accused persons were found guilty of the first count and were sentenced to imprisonment of three years or pay a fine of Tsh 300.000/= each. The appellant was alone found guilty of both counts and was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the decision he appealed to the High Court. The appeal was allowed, the sentence was quashed and set aside and the court ordered immediate release of the appellant from jail.