WILDLEX

The accused were charged and convicted of contravening section 15 (1) of the Fauna Conservation Act. The first appellant killed three kudus whereas his licence only permitted him to hunt for two springboks.

The appellant was convicted by the magistrate court with four men of illegal hunting and killing of a conserved animal, giraffe (without a license or permit) contrary to the Fauna Conservation Proclamation. The appellant himself did not kill the animal but instructed the other four men to kill the animal.

This is an appeal against the refusal of an application by Baiphethi Molefe to the Chief Magistrate sitting at Maun on 6th May, 1982, for the return of a rifle which had been confiscated in a case in which Pelaelo Mosheti was convicted of unlawful hunting without a licence contrary to section 15 (4) as read with (2) (b) (i) of the Fauna Conserva

This is an appeal case against a sentence imposed on a first time offender who pleaded guilty of being in unlawful possession of a Government trophy.

This was an appeal against the decision of the Chief Magistrate that convicted and sentenced the appellants of a series of offences arising out of killing wild animals. The appellants also sought to vary the forfeiture order against the rifles and vehicle that were found to have been used in the commission of the offences.

An appeal against the judgement of a Magistrate Court against the accused for excessive conviction for unlawful hunting of rhinos and insufficient evidence to sustain conviction. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit and the decision of the Magistrate Court affirmed.

This is an appeal against conviction which came before this High Court on 2 December 2008. On count 1, the court reasoned that Section 109 is a criminal provision, thus s 109 is concerned with a threat of physical injury to a public servant.

The appellants were convicted on a single count of the offence of hunting 2 duikers and 2 steenboks, without a licence contrary to Section 19(3) of the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act, 28 of 1992. The appellants, during their trial, elected not to lead evidence, alternatively to call any witnesses.

Accused was convicted of unlawfully hunting without a licence contrary to section 15 (1) of Cap. 38:01 Fauna Conservation. His defence was that he was under the impression that he was entitled to hunt and kill on the licences of other members of the party.

The accused were charged with hunting in a game reserve, in contravention of the Fauna Conservation Proclamation, 1961; alternatively, that they were hunting without a licence or permit. In their defence, the accused argued that they did not know they were hunting in a game reserve, and that they had the licences necessary to hunt the zebra.