The two accused were convicted of various offences in terms of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975 ranging from illegal hunting of huntable protected and specially protected game (tortoise and oryx) to possession of the said game or their meat. The accused pleaded guilty to certain offences and not guilty to others. However, the State Attorney closed the case without calling witnesses or leading evidence to prove the allegations not admitted by the accused. As a consequence, the magistrate acquitted the accused without placing them on own defence despite the accused having admitted some allegations of the offences charged with. The matter was submitted to the Windhoek High Court Main Division (High Court) for review. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentences on admitted offences but set aside the acquittals. The Court held that that both the magistrate and the prosecutor were ignorant of the provisions of section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 which provides for the correction of plea of guilty. The High Court further held that magistrate’s failure to put accused persons on own defence was wrong in law. The Court also held that the magistrate’s acquittal of the accused when some allegations in the charges were admitted by the accused was a grossly irregular and a serious misdirection.