The two accused men were charged for contravening section 27(1) read with subsections 1, 27(2), 85, 87 and 89 (A) of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975, as amended further read with subsections 90 and 250 of 51 of 1977. On review, Justice Shivute stated that according to schedule 5 of the Ordinance, an Eland is neither specially protected nor protected game. They were therefore charged and convicted under the wrong sections. As a result, the conviction and sentence could not stand. The accused were supposed to have been charged with the prohibition of hunting huntable game in contravention of s 30 (1) (c) of Ordinance 4 of 1975. The court set aside the conviction based on the wrong charge of contravening s 27 (1) and substituted with the conviction on prohibition of hunting huntable game in contravention of s 30 (1) of Ordinance 4 of 1975. The sentence was confirmed but amended to reflect that a fine of N$1 000 or 6 months imprisonment was imposed on each accused person as the magistrates court had been vague and not stated that the sentence was for each of the two accused persons.