WILDLEX

This is an appeal case were the accused was aqutted and the convictions on the three counts of Unlawful Possession of Prescribed Trophy without a certificate of ownership were set aside for lack of proper evidence provided to the court.

The appellants, all first offenders, were charged with hunting elephant and rhinoceros. They were charged on the 31 October 1986 for selling two pairs of rhinoceros horns without permit. They were convicted on prohibited dealing in trophies and sentenced to three years imprisonment based on the section they were charged under.

The applicant appealed the matter in the Supreme Court of Zambia challenging the order by the Surbodinate Court for forfeiture on the grounds that Phiri was not the owner of the firearm, and that for such order to be made where the property involved belonged not to the person convicted but to an innocent third party, it must be shown that the th

The accussed was fined a sum of K5000 or 9 months’ simple imprisonment in default of the fine. To review this matter, the court referred to ss 337 and 338 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This court reasoned that there were two kinds of trophies involved that had been placed under one charge sheet.

The appellant was convicted of being in possession of rhino horns without a certificate of ownership. The appeallant appealed the conviction.

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 accused were charged with various counts in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (“POCA”). The court was presented with evidence which led to the accused’s’ arrest. During the trial, it became apparent that there was an informer who was working for the Scorpions and was gathering information of the crime syndicate.

The court considered an appeal against the sentenced imposed on the appellants on the basis that they are shockingly inappropriate and out of kilter with other cases and that the court below didn’t take into account their personal circumstances.

The court considered an appeal on the basis that the court below erred in not granting the interdict.

At the heart of this matter were the customary rights to marine resources. The appellants were tried at the Magistrate court and later appealed to the High Court in Mthatha. The Hight Court, however, held that their conduct was unlawful because they had not applied for an exemption as contemplated in the MLRA, granting them a permit to fish.