WILDLEX

This was a review case where the judges looked into the sentences that had been given by the magistrate at the lower court for 2 accused persons who were found to be unlawfully in possesson of game meat.

The appellants brought an appeal against the sentences handed down to them by the Magistrate, for being in possession of a live pangolin in contravention of teh Controlled Wildlife Act. The sentence imposed was 24 months imprisonment of which 12 months were suspended for 5 years on appropriate conditions.

The two accused men were charged for contravening section 27(1) read with subsections 1, 27(2), 85, 87 and 89 (A) of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975, as amended further read with subsections 90 and 250 of 51 of 1977.

This was a case of review where the judge questioned whether a proper sentence was imposed for accused 1 for count 1.

The Magistrate Court commenced trial without the accused persons having pleaded to the charges. The Magistrate referred the matter for special review before sentencing of the accused persons. Court found that it had jurisdiction in terms of section 20(1)(c) of the High Court Act 16 of 1990 to review the proceedings of a Magistrate’s Court.

The court considered a review of the court below’s finding relating to the accused’s charge. The accused was charged and convicted of contravening s 30 (1) of Ordinance 4 of 1975 for unlawfully hunting huntable game. The accused was found in possession of a shotgun, which he had used in the commission of the offence.

The appellant was convicted in the Magistrate’s Court on two accounts of contravening the Firearms Act and one count of contravening the National Parks and Wildlife Act, Cap. 316. The appellant appeared before the Supreme Court to apply for the return of his firearm which was ordered to be forfeited.

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