WILDLEX

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 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.

The second Accused person found the carcass of a kudu near the road as he took his employers herd of cattle to a water point.