The appellant was stopped by the police, as he drove away from the scene and was brought back to the scene. He was found in possession of keys to specific Units and cell phones. The Manageress testified that Unit 12 was leased by the appellant. On one of the seized cell phones from the appellant, photos of the whole elephant tusks were found, which were enhanced by the forensic laboratory expert, and had certain inscriptions on them. Appellant’s finger and palm prints were found on both Units 12 and 349 boxes. Mr Paul Geldenhuys had noticed during the weighing process of each ivory item in the photo from the seized cell phones that markings were similar on certain pieces cut up. He had noted that the whole tusks seen on the photos from the appellant’s cell phone had been locally cut, a day, two or three before the arrest date. The court was called upon to decide whether the court a quo was correct in convicting the appellant on both counts or whether this amounted to splitting the charges; whether the fine of R 5 million imposed exceeded the court’s monetary jurisdiction; whether the sentence of two years imprisonment on count 3 was too harsh; and whether the conviction and sentence should be in any event upheld. The court held that the court a quo was correct save for the issue of sentencing. Thus, the appeal succeeded in part and the accused was sentenced to 7 years.