WILDLEX

On 6 of November 2005, Kenya Wildlife Service Rangers found 2 men, the current appellants, slaughtering a buffalo within the Ragati forest. Arresting them, they recovered a spear, 2 pangas, a snare and 2 bags. The appellants were charged with the aforesaid offences.

The five appellants have been charged on the aforesaid Count Nos. 2 and 4. The Court, to which the appeals have been made, noted "certain glaring anomalies" with the court of first instance's verdict.

This case is an application for bail pending appeal.

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.

The appellants were represented in the Subordinate Court by an attorney, and according to the record, upon the charge being put to them they and their co-accused all pleaded guilty.

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.