WILDLEX

The court had to settle point in laws which were in dispute in this case. On a charge of unlawfully hunting in a Game Reserve it was contended by the Defence that Statutory Instrument No.

The court held that the onus is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that it is the duty of the trial judicial officer to warn himself of the danger of convicting on the evidence of accomplice witnesses. The court held that the magistrate had failed to make a record of such warning.

The appellant was found guilty of hunting and killing one elephant without a licence and it was against that conviction that he filed the appeal in the High Court. The appellant had been convicted but the charge was defective in that it failed to disclose an offence.

This was an appeal against the rejection of a recusal application by a magistrate who was also charged with the administration or permits and licences under the Fauna Proclamation.

The court held that as an observer PW1 (a game scout) could only testify to the fact that the demarcated lines were ”cut” but not to whether they conformed with the Statutiry instrument. Thus PW1’s evidence is that of hearsay and inadmissible.

This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence of a fine of P100 passed by the Chief Magistrate at Francistown on 8th April, 1982 on a charge of failing to report a Government trophy contrary to section 82 (1) as read with section 82 (2) of the Fauna Conservation Act Cap 38:01 as amended by Act No. I of 1979.

The court held that in this matter, it was common cause that a South African Court had jurisdiction to decide ownership of the Sable based on the cession agreement. The court found that the cession agreement had been signed by the attorney, acting under the authority of the first respondent.

A simultaneous appeal and review was brought concerning the customary rights of the Dwesa-Cwebe communities to access marine resources in a marine protected area. An appeal was brought against the conviction and sentence of the accused for, among others, fishing or attempting to fish in a marine protected area.

This dispute concerns the ownership of a valuable herd of Cape Buffalo, which escaped from the Thomas Baines Nature Reserve in the Eastern Cape, a provincial nature reserve managed in the public interest by the appellant, the Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency ("the Agency").

The court considered an appeal on the basis that the magistrate erred in denying the accused bail and that the magistrate erred in finding that the accused may abscond and fail to attend trial due to his ability to enter and leave the Republic without going through a border.