The accused persons VOS Christopher and CHINGO Zachari were prosecuted before Court of First Instance, Djoum, for complicity, illegal detention of trophies of protected animal species and firearm. On the 22 November 2011, the court passed judgement. The accused CHINGO Zachari was found not guilty of complicity to illegal detention of animal trophies and complicity in the illegal detention of firearm. VOS Christopher was found guilty as charged and sentenced to pay 40,000 XAF for fines, 28,150 XAF for costs and 835,000 XAF for damages. The accused persons VOS Christopher, CHINGO Zachari and the civil party, the Ministry of Forestry and wildlife appealed against the judgement through their respective lawyers. On 05 December 2012, the appellants were notified through their counsels to pay 45,025 XAF under penalty of forfeiture of the appeal, the costs of reproduction of the proceedings file within ten days of notification to the registry of the court that issued the contested decision as required by section 23 of law N°. 2006/015 of December 29, 2006 on judicial organization. The accused persons failed to pay the cost, consequently, their appeals were dismissed and rejected. On the other hand, the civil party, Ministry of Forestry, and wildlife complied with this requirement and paid the cost, its appeal was declared admissible. The civil party appealed against the judgment on the following grounds. That the trial judge misrepresented the facts of the case by so doing based its decision solely on the offences under the wildlife law without taking into consideration the accused CHINGO Zacharie's confession to the illegal detention of a firearm which otherwise should have found him guilty. Secondly, the civil party criticized the leniency expressed by the trial court in its sentencing. According to this appellant, the leniency exercised by the trial court in sentencing the accused persons is not proportionate to the gravity of the offense and it violates not only violated law no.94/01 of 20 January 1994 to lay down forestry, wildlife and fisheries regulations, but also violated the 1996 Finance Law. After the hearing, the matter was adjourned for judgement.