The accused were charged and convicted of contravening section 15 (1) of the Fauna Conservation Act. The first appellant killed three kudus whereas his licence only permitted him to hunt for two springboks. On trial the first appellant alleged that when he shot and killed the game he could not tell the difference between a springbok and an impala. He thought they were impalas for which he had a licence. The trial magistrate found the defence by the first defendant unconvincing so it was rejected and he was accordingly convicted. The second appellant’s offence was that he was riding in the vehicle with the first appellant which was carrying the carcasses of the game therefore he was also guilty of the same offence committed by the first appellant in as much as he was not involved in the actual killing of the animals. The court held that the first appellant had contravened section 15 (1) of the Act but however the second appellant could not be charged based on the doctrine of strict liablity as the provisions only applied to the person who would have hunted and not any other person in the company of the hunter.