The appellants in the court below were found to be hunting game animals without a licence. The appellants plead guilty to the offence and were convicted on 2 counts of the offence of unlawful possession of government trophy contrary to Section 100 (1) and Section 135 of the Zambia Wildlife Authority Act, 12 of 1998. The appellants were fined 2 and 3 million Kwacha, alternatively 18- and 24-months imprisonment in default of the fine. The court also ordered that a vehicle be forfeited to the state. This was opposed on the basis that the vehicle did not belong to the appellants, it belonged to a Mr Chansa, who merely lent the vehicle to them. The court below found that Mr Chansa planned the hunting expedition with the appellants, and that his failure to enquire what the appellants intended to use the vehicle for inferred that he knew what its purpose was. The appellants appealed against the ruling on 3 main grounds, namely, 1) the court below erred in ordering forfeiture of the vehicle, 2) the court below erred in finding that Mr Chansa planned the hunting expedition, and 3) the court below erred in ordering forfeiture of the vehicle when Mr Chansa was not charged, tried and convicted for the offence. The state argued that the court below did not properly address itself with Mr Chansa’s evidence regarding the forfeiture of the vehicle. The court found that Mr Chansa adequately advised on how the appellants came to be in possession of his vehicle, namely that they requested to use it to go and see a sick relative. The court found that the court below fell into grave error when ordering forfeiture of the vehicle, and that he had misdirected himself when alleging Mr Chansa was working with the accused. Thus, the court below failed to take into account the evidence presented to it.