WILDLEX

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

The accussed was fined a sum of K5000 or 9 months’ simple imprisonment in default of the fine. To review this matter, the court referred to ss 337 and 338 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This court reasoned that there were two kinds of trophies involved that had been placed under one charge sheet.

The appellant was convicted of being in possession of rhino horns without a certificate of ownership. The appeallant appealed the conviction.

The appellants in the court below were found to be hunting game animals without a licence. The appellants plead guilty to the offence and were convicted on 2 counts of the offence of unlawful possession of government trophy contrary to Section 100 (1) and Section 135 of the Zambia Wildlife Authority Act, 12 of 1998.

The court considered an appeal against the sentence imposed.

The two Accused had been convicted of unlawfully hunting game. The value of weapons and vehicle used in the commission of the offence exceeded the civil jurisdiction of a Subordinate Court, which accordingly referred the question of forfeiture of these articles to the High Court.

Appellants had been convicted for unlawful hunting upon a plea of guilty before a Subordinate Court. They had hunted 19 springbok and 1 gemsbok without a licence. All pleaded guilty, were convicted and were sentenced to pay fines of varying amounts.