WILDLEX

All three appellants have appealed against their convictions. There is no appeal against the sentences, because of the mandatory provisions of the legislation in casu. The representative of the Crown conceded Accused No. 5's appeal, due to the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence against him, specifically. Since Accused No.

As mentioned above, officials of the National Parks and Wildlife Department disguised themselves as potential customers of the defendant, who was in possession of large amounts of ivory with the intention for sale.

Accused persons were found guilty of unlawful possession of 2 horns in contravention of the Game Act. The Act prescribes that a person found guilty of the offence must either replace the game or compensate the full value of the property to the owner or government in cases where the owner cannot be established.

The applicant sought bail pleading exceptional circumstances: his severe medical condition; he was elderly (51 years) and that he was a first-time offender.

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.