WILDLEX

This is an appeal case based on arguments that the sentence of imprisonment is excessive when the magistrate could have imposed a fine and that the order for forfeiture was wrong.

The court held that, the fine imposed was the maximum according to section 110 (b) of the Act which provides for penalties. The court held that, there is no explanation why the magistrate imposed the maximum fine for an accused who pleaded guilty and was a first offender.

This was an appeal on the decision of the Chief Magistrate that found the appellant guilty of possession of four pieces of raw ivory and two hippo teeth without a permit or licence.

The appellant was charged with hunting of specially protected game and arrested. They applied for bail and the magistrate declined the application until the investigations were finalised. The court mero motu raised the issue whether the matter was appealable given the apparent hybrid nature of the order given.

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.

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.

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.