The accused were charged with hunting in a game reserve, in contravention of the Fauna Conservation Proclamation, 1961; alternatively, that they were hunting without a licence or permit. In their defence, the accused argued that they did not know they were hunting in a game reserve, and that they had the licences necessary to hunt the zebra. The Court noted that the licences tendered in evidence were issued in the names of the accused; issued in another’s name, but endorsed to the accused; or issued in another’s name with no endorsement to the accused. The Court considered the licences tendered in evidence under these three considerations, to determine whether they were valid and permitted the hunting of the zebra. The accused had more than one licence issued in their names, and it was for the court to decide whether they were entitled to hold more than one licence, and the number of zebra that could be hunted on one licence held. It was held that the accused could only hunt one zebra on one licence in any one open season. The accused hunted in excess of the licences in their possession, and certain licences were void.