WILDLEX

The appellant was stopped by the police, as he drove away from the scene and was brought back to the scene. He was found in possession of keys to specific Units and cell phones. The Manageress testified that Unit 12 was leased by the appellant.

The Director-General, Department Of Environmental Affairs (2nd Respondent) invited the public to make written submissions on proposed lion export quota in line with CITES requirements.

The second respondent (“the Minister”) had announced the complete suspension of the commercial fishing of wild abalone in accordance with section 16 of the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998. The applicants were rights holders in the industry. They lodged protests against the suspension.

In a judgment handed down in the sentencing of Mr Blignault, the Court considered the evidence placed before it during his trial, its weight, and the personal circumstances of the accused.

This case involves a company (HBFI) that was involved in harvesting fish in excess of its quotas and buying illegally harvested fish from other catchers which violated inter alia the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998 (‘the Marine Act’).

The appellants were convicted own their pleas of conspiring to commit an offence of illegal hunting of a rhinoceros, and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition in the magistrate court. They were sentenced to 5 years imprisonment each for count 1 and 4 years imprisonment each for count 3.

On 11 April 2017, the accused persons BIBE Jean & EMANE Marceline received a modern gun and food provisions from a certain MINYONO of Mfem Village to carry out elephant poaching in the Dja Biosphere Reserve.

The appellant was charged with hunting of specially protected game and arrested. They applied for bail and the magistrate declined the application until the investigations were finalised. The court mero motu raised the issue whether the matter was appealable given the apparent hybrid nature of the order given.

The applicant filed an application on review seeking an order that would set aside the acquittal of the respondent. This court then focused on the interpretation of the phrase ’irregularity in the proceedings’. The court referred to several precedents that had stated that a mistake in law was not per se an irregularity.

The appellant in this matter was found in possession of raw Ivory and sentenced. Which it seems, he claimed he was not involved with. He was charged with contravening section 2(1)(a), read with s. 1 of Proclamation AG 42 of 1980 (as amended). And found guilty.