The appellants were jointly arraigned in the District Court of Nachingwea at Nachingwea on a charge of unlawful possession of government trophies. Both were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for twenty (20) years. Aggrieved with the decision, they both preferred appeals to the High Court of Tanzania at Mtwara.
The appellants were arrested following information that they were in possession of buffalo meat. The appellants disputed any knowledge about the meat affirming they had no license for hunting. They were found in the house where the meat was because they took rest for the night.
The appellant Ausi Hassani Nampali was on 24th October, 2001 convicted by the Lindi District Court on two counts of unlawful possession of government trophy contrary to section 67(1) and (c) (d) (iii) and (2A) of the Wildlife Conservation Act No. 12 of 1974 as amended by Act No.
The appellant one Mauridi Ganame was on 17/04/1997 convicted by Lindi District Court on a charge of unlawful possession of government trophies. He was subsequently sentenced to twenty five (25) years imprisonment. While the court sentenced the appellant was not in court.
The appellant Ahmad Mshamu was on 13/06/2002 convicted by Newala District Court on a charge of four counts. Among them, two were on unlawful possession of fire arms and other two counts were on unlawful possession of government trophies contrary to the law. He appealed the decision.
In 1995 a wildlife officer received information that the appellants have been engaged in illegally trafficking in white-tailed deer, deer and elk antlers, and moose. As a result of the resulting investigation the appellants were charged with a variety of offences contrary to The Wildlife Act, S.S.
Mr. Sawicki plead guilty under The Wildlife Act, 1998, for trafficking in wildlife and possession of wildlife for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s.44(a) and s.44(b). He was sentenced to 15 months to be served in the community (a conditional sentence).
This is a case of appeal. The respondent was accused on three charges listed above. The question was, whether the permits the respondent (at that time: the accused) carried were technically valid for the actions he committed.