WILDLEX

The first applicant had applied for a permit to hunt elephants. Elephants had been classified as damage causing animals in South Africa. The permit was issued approving the shooting of two elephants by a local hunter.

The Appellant had been convicted of unlawful possession of abalone without a valid permit, in contravention of regulations issued under the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998. He appealed against his conviction.

This is an appeal against a sentence. The appellant was charged with two counts:
1. Failing to declare the possession of 12 rhinoceros horns, contravening section 15(15)(b) read with section 1, 81, 87(1), and 95 of the Customs and Exice Act, No. 91 of 1964.

The accused and three other men were inside the Ndumo Game Reserve on 19 November 2011 at 17:00. One man was carrying a firearm. Game rangers patrolling in the Reserve caught sight of the men in pursuit of a rhino. The rangers ordered the man to put down the firearm. Instead, he turned and pointed it at the rangers.

This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Ms Khohliso, a traditional healer from Tsolo in the former Transkei was convicted by the Tsolo Magistrates’ Court for the possession of a pair of vulture feet in contravention of section 13(c) read with section 84(13) of the Transkei’s Decree 9 of 1992.

This is a judgement on appeal at the Supreme Court.

This is an appeal by the appellant against his conviction and sentence by the Regional Court magistrate, Upington, on charges of contravention of sections 44(1)(b)(i) and 46 of the Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance 19 of 1974.

The accused were charged with various counts in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (“POCA”). The court was presented with evidence which led to the accused’s’ arrest. During the trial, it became apparent that there was an informer who was working for the Scorpions and was gathering information of the crime syndicate.

The court considered an appeal against the sentenced imposed on the appellants on the basis that they are shockingly inappropriate and out of kilter with other cases and that the court below didn’t take into account their personal circumstances.