The accused pleaded guilty and were convicted for unlawfully hunting 2 rhino’s and being in possession of rhino horns. The court below considered the seriousness of the crime and the number of rhino’s killed per year and the impact that poaching has on the economy and imposed a sentence of 6 years imprisonment and a N$60 000.00 fine. The accused appealed the sentence stating that the court below failed to take into consideration a number of factors, i.e. their personal circumstances and it overemphasised the seriousness of the crime. The state cross-appealed stating that the sentence imposed was to lenient and that the court below erred in considering the seriousness of the offence and the interests of society in deterring serious crimes. The court found that nothing precludes a court from imposing a custodial sentence. The court considered Section 26(3)(a) of Ordinance 4, 1975, and found that the statute makes provision for a higher fine and a longer term of imprisonment for the hunting of rhino. Thus, the court below did not err when sentencing them to imprisonment. Further, the court found that the court below did not err when it emphasised the need for general deterrence for the protection of wildlife. In determining whether the sentence imposed was too lenient, the court found that the court below erred in adequately considering the more stringent penal provisions which properly reflect the interest of society and imposed a sentence which was too lenient.