The appellants appeared before the District Magistrates’ Court on two charges of contravening the Nature Conservation Ordinance, 1975 relating to hunting specially protected game, (namely: three elephants) without a permit and possession of six elephant tusks. The main ground of appeal against conviction on both count 1 and 2 was that the Magistrate misdirected herself when she convicted the appellants on admissions of bare elements of the offences without further information relating to the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence. In order to evaluate whether the ground of appeal was indeed sustainable or not the judges found it appropriate to, in full, quote the questioning of the appellants in terms of section 112(1)(b) in the court a quo. The legal question was whether the answers given in an enquiry in terms of s 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 constitute evidence under oath from which the court can draw inferences regarding the guilt of the accused. The magistrate failed to ask questions which were crucial to the revelation of the elements of the offence which the appellants faced. Judges were therefore of the view that in this case, the appellants’ answers, correctly construed, fell noticeably short of an admission of guilt and were consequently insufficient to satisfy the court that they really were guilty. The conviction and sentence were set aside. The matter was remitted in terms of s 312 of Act 51 of 1977 to the Magistrates’ Court for the District of Katima Mulilo.