It was alleged that the accused person on 10 March 2015 Chanumba Village within Chamwino District was found in possession of honey badger skin, pangolin skin, cobra skin, python skin, hyena tail, “mangore” skin. The accused was found guilty.
The appellants were found at Serengeti National Park without any written authorization. They were also armed with bows and arrows, knives, bush knives and trapping wires. It was also alleged by the prosecution that they were found in possession of government trophies.
The appellant was found in a game reserve to be in possession of fire arm and meat of the animals named in the species sub section below without a valid permit. During trial he denied the facts as presented by the prosecution.
On 21/03/2010 at 15:00 hours, the park rangers were on patrol at Mti Mmoja area within Serengeti National Park. They saw carnivores birds (Tai) surrounding and roaming around a certain bush, they though a wild animal had died on that area so they made a follow up. When they reached the area they saw people in the bush.
Sometimes on 02nd December, 2015 at Gua village within Chunya District in Mbeya region accused person was arraigned and found in unlawful possession of government trophy. Also was in unlawful possession of muzzle loading gun. Then brought before the court to answer a charge. The accused was convicted.
Sometime on 25th March, 2015 at Gua village within Chunya District in Mbeya region was found in unlawful possession of the government trophies. Also was found in unlawful possession of firearms. Then brought before the court to answer the charge. The accused was convited.
On 17th April, 2008 at Rukwa Lukwati Forest Reserve within Mpanda District the accused person was arraigned and found in unlawful possession of government trophies. Then brought before the court to answer a charge. The accused was convicted.
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.