WILDLEX

In the lower court, accused 1 and 2 were convicted of count 1, contravening sections 1,30(1)(b), (30)(1)(c), 85, 89 A of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975 as amended read with ss 90 and 250 of Act 51 of 1977. Accused 5 was convicted of the first alternative to count 1 – Possession of game meat contravening s 51 of Ordinance 4 of 1975.

This is an appeal case where the court looked into the procedure taken to try the matter at the lower court. The judges questioned whether the convictions in the trial court were duplicated.

The accused were charged with the unlawful exportation of controlled wildlife products:14 rhino horns on the first count and a leopard skin on the second count, as well as money laundering on count 3.

The accused, in this automatic review matter, was tried in the Grootfontein Magistrate’s Court, on one count of hunting specially protected game, (namely: a giraffe, valued at N$9000-00) in contravention of section 26(1) of Ordinance 40 of 1975. He was convicted as charged and sentenced to five years direct imprisonment.

The plaintiff who was arrested for theft of 2 zebra skins, spent 32 days in custody awaiting trial. His case was later withdrawn. He then claimed N$277 200.00 from the defendant for wrongfully and maliciously setting the law in motion by laying a false charge against him.

The appellants appeared before the District Magistrates’ Court on two charges of contravening the Nature Conservation Ordinance, 1975 relating to hunting specially protected game, (namely: three elephants) without a permit and possession of six elephant tusks.

Two men were charged, in the Magistrate’s Court at Okahandja for contravening section 30 (1)(a), read with section 1, 30(1)(b) + (c), 85, 89 and 89A of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975 as amended, and further read with sections 90 and 250 of Act 51 of 1977; that is hunting a warthog at Farm Ouparakane without a permit and theft of the

The respondent was charged with hunting huntable game and unlawful transportation of game meat without a permit. At the close of the State’s case, the magistrate, in accordance with section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, discharged the respondent.

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.

For the State’s case, Detective Steyn from the South African Police testified that he had started out an investigation after having seen a truck and trailer with ostriches that was driven by an employee of accused no.1.