The accused persons WO LEMBO ABO Eric and MEFIRE ISSOFA were prosecuted before Court of First Instance, Yokadouma for complicity to killing and illegal detention of trophies of class A totally protected animal species. On the 08 February 2019, the court passed judgement. The accused WO LEMBO ABO Eric was found not guilty of complicity. MEFIRE ISSOFA and MBOA Michel were found guilty as charged and sentenced to eight (08) months fixed term imprisonment, to pay 200,000 XAF for fines each, 65,390 XAF for costs and 560,000 XAF for damages. The State Attorney appealed against the judgment on the following grounds. That the trial judge poorly appreciated the evidence presented before it and thereby disregarded the sufficient incriminating evidence portrayed against the accused WO LEMBO ABO Eric, finding him not guilty and acquitting him. He supported this argument by revealing that, the vehicle TOYOTA Carina Exil vehicle chassis no. 211817 used in transporting the trophies (two elephant tusks) was found at the residence of Wo Lembo on the day after the incidence. That neither MBOA Michel who was driving the vehicle at the time of the seizure, nor MEFIRE ISSOFA could have had access to this vehicle nor move it without his consent. That WO LEMBO intentionally handed over this vehicle for the act to be carried and so the judge erred in exonerating him. Wo Lembo intentionally handing over the keys of the vehicle used in committing the offence makes him an accomplice. Secondly, that the eight months’ imprisonment terms and fine of 200,000 XAF (two hundred thousand CFA) each, meted out was obviously complacent and weak compared to the gravity of the offence committed. While in court, Barrister ZANGUEU Martin, the counsel for MEFIRE ISSOFA pleaded with the court to confirm the judgement of the lower court and requested the return of the seized vehicle as per the provision of Article 35 (1) of the Penal Code which makes confiscation an optional measure for the judge and pleaded the court to reconsider it. However, it was rejected because the accused persons did not file an appeal against the judgement. After the hearing, the matter was adjourned for judgement.