This was an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate’s court to convict and sentence the appellants for unlawful Possession of Prescribed Trophy Contrary to section 130(2) (a) and 86 of the Zambia Wildlife Act. The appellants argued that they were convicted on an indictment that did not disclose an offence; that the magistrate erred by convicting all the appellants when the first appellant had claimed complete ownership of the Rhino horns; that the magistrate shifted the burden of proof from the State to the appellants by requiring them to support their legal possession of the Rhino horns and the court failed to address its mind to the contradictory evidence of the prosecution. The court considered whether incomplete particulars of offence rendered a charge bad when the statement of offence is complete and accurate. The court was of the view that the offence was adequately disclosed despite the defective indictment and that the appellants suffered no prejudice by the omission in the charge sheet. The court also considered the issue of common purpose where the accused persons are jointly charged for an offence. It was noted that common purpose does not have to be expressed or otherwise premeditated. The court held that 4th and 5th appellant’s conviction was erroneous as there was no evidence to show their involvement in the offence. However, the court inferred the 2nd and 3rd appellant’s knowledge of the content in the bags given the weight of the Rhino horns.