The case was determined by determining "in whose possession or control were the tusks when they were found at Mogoditshane"? For the evidence so far led before the court a quo clearly showed that the accused was in possession as well as in control of the elephant tusks at the place in Mogoditshane where he hid them even though he was not in occupation of the place and that he had kept them there for use or benefit of himself. It could very well be argued that he was found in possession of those tusks immediately he produced them from the shelter where he hid them and before handing them over to the police. The learned principal magistrate misdirected himself in the interpretation of section 68(2) of the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act 1992, by erroneously holding that the accused person did not have the tusks under his direct control. In view of the serious misdirection in law committed by the magistrate, The State's appeal was allowed, the magistrate's decision was set aside and in terms of section 10(1)(c) of the High Court Act, the case was remitted to the magistrate a quo, with instructions that the accused, Dennis Akuje, be put on his defence and the case to proceed on its merits.