The court considered a review of the court below’s finding relating to the accused’s charge. The accused was charged and convicted of contravening s 30 (1) of Ordinance 4 of 1975 for unlawfully hunting huntable game. The accused was found in possession of a shotgun, which he had used in the commission of the offence. He was convicted and sentenced. The matter was taken on review on the basis that the court below failed to take cognisance and to mero motu apply the provisions of section 10 of the Arms and Ammunition Act. The court found enquired from the court below whether it was not obliged to act in accordance with section 10 of the Arms and Ammunition Act? Section 10 relates to declaring a person unfit to possess a firearm when found guilty of an offence whereby he was in possession of a firearm without the requisite permit. The court below responded to the query and stated that the provision had slipped his mind. The court found that section 10 was imperative and the matter ought to be remitted back to the court below to give effect to the Act.