WILDLEX

This was an appeal against the decision of the Chief Magistrate that convicted and sentenced the appellants of a series of offences arising out of killing wild animals. The appellants also sought to vary the forfeiture order against the rifles and vehicle that were found to have been used in the commission of the offences.

This was an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate’s court to convict and sentence the appellants for unlawful Possession of Prescribed Trophy Contrary to section 130(2) (a) and 86 of the Zambia Wildlife Act.

The accused had been found in possession of a firearm without a license in contravention of the National Parks and Wildlife Act, (Cap. 316) s. 145 (1) and the Firearms Act, (Cap.111) s. 54 (2) and with the intention of hunting game illegally.

A licensed hunter instructed his servant to kill an elephant, and left the servant in charge of the trophy. The Court held that this did not make the servant guilty of being in the possession of a trophy without a licence.

Dismissed appeal for lack of Merit- An appeal by the Appellant namely Pagainst the conviction on his own admission by the Magistrate of the Subordinate Court of the first class sitting on grounds that the charge did not disclose the full ingredients of the offence and that the plea of guilt being enter by the accused was equivocal and improper.

This is an Appeal against the Ruling of the High Court, dated the 12th of May, 2008 where the trial Judge refused the Appellant’s application for leave to apply for Judicial Review.

The applicant sought bail pleading exceptional circumstances: his severe medical condition; he was elderly (51 years) and that he was a first-time offender.

This is an appeal case based on arguments that the sentence of imprisonment is excessive when the magistrate could have imposed a fine and that the order for forfeiture was wrong.

The court held that, the fine imposed was the maximum according to section 110 (b) of the Act which provides for penalties. The court held that, there is no explanation why the magistrate imposed the maximum fine for an accused who pleaded guilty and was a first offender.

This was an appeal on the decision of the Chief Magistrate that found the appellant guilty of possession of four pieces of raw ivory and two hippo teeth without a permit or licence.