WILDLEX

The appellant was found in the district of Songea to be in possession of 14 elephant tusks without a valid license following a hint provided by an informer that the appellant was going to transport the tusks. He was arrested and confessed to the charges. He was then tried and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

The appellants were found to be in unlawful possession of elephant tusks found in the second appellant’s house and fresh and dried meat found in the first appellant’s house alleged to have been obtained from Katavi National Park. The appellants were found to be in possession of elephant meat and tusks without a valid licence.

The appellant was found in possession of 71 pieces of elephant tusks and stood trial before the district court of Shinyanga as presided over by a Resident Magistrate. The appellant appealed to the High Court but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted by the District Court of Monduli at Monduli in absentia for unlawful possession of government trophy. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for twenty (20) years.

On the 7th day of October 2010 in Mugumu, upon information given by a secret informant the accused and one person Mosenye Barisere are suspected to be in possession of government trophies.

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.