The court considered an appeal against the sentence imposed. The appeal was based on the following grounds, that the magistrate erred in law in refusing to order a forfeiture of the vehicle which was used to hunt the lion and that the magistrate erred in ordering the forfeiture of the rifle under section 89(1) of the Fauna Conservation Act, instead of section 89 (3). The court considered, before dealing with the appeal, whether the attorney-general had any authority to appeal the matter. The court found that section 82 of the Act confers the power on any attorney-general in a criminal matter to appeal. However, based on the wording of the provision, the attorney-general was not exercising this power correctly. In determining the forfeiture, the court found that the magistrate could have ordered forfeiture of both the rifle and the vehicle, or detained them for 28 days pending representations from others. Be that as it may, the vehicle was used in commission of the offence. As such, in bringing the appeal, one would have to assume that the appeal was based on fact, as well as a question of law. In that instance, it cannot be said that the vehicle did not have anything to do with the offence, thus you would have to accept the magistrate’s facts. The court found that a question of fact in Botswana, and an appeal, cannot be said to be in respect of a question of law only. The grounds of appeal disclosed questions of mixed law and fact and as such was incompetent. The appeal was dismissed