Found 295 search results Show on map

The Republic versus Nicodemus Sulumo - No. 13 of 2008


On and about the 6th May 2008, at Emboreti area within Simanjiro District in Manyara region the accused person was found in possession of a Grant gazelle meat by the Anti-Poaching Unit during routine patrol. The accused person was riding a bicycle with a bucket on it. Upon being stopped, the Unit found gazelle meat in the bucket. However, the accused person claimed that the bucket contained goat meat that he obtained from his uncle. A ten cell leader of the area was informed and later the accused was taken to the Anti-Poaching Unit office in Arusha for further legal actions. During trial the accused retracted the confession statement given before the Anti-Poaching Unit alleging that it was obtained by force. Further, the accused person denied possession of the Government Trophy and insisted that it was a goat meat. The accused was acquitted.

The Republic versus Iddy Laurent Watae and two others - No. 17 of 2011


The accused and two others on and about 11st December 2011 at Mererani within Simanjiro District in Manyara region were found in possession of government trophies valued at Tshs. 9,024,000/= without a valid license from authorized authority. It was the prosecution case that on the material day, the Anti-Poaching Unit received a tip from an informer that the accused persons were in the first accused house with wild meat. The Unit contacted the 10 x 10 cell leader where the accused house is located and went to search the house. Upon arriving in the house, the Unit found all three accused persons with zebra meat. On searching the house, two impala legs and horn of Grant gazelle were found. The accused persons were arrested, taken to Police station for interrogation then to the Anti-Poaching Office in Arusha. The accused persons were found not guilty of the offences charged.

The Republic versus Jeremiah Otumi @ Magelo and another - No. 22 of 2013


The Anti-Poaching Unit received information from their informer that there is a business if elephants tusk about to happen in Arusha-Njiro area. Posing as buyers, the Unit contacted the seller about the possibility of buying the tusks. The sellers fell into a trap and showed the unit the tusks. The accused persons, Jeremiah Magelo and Yohana Duka were arrested by the Anti-Poaching Unit. There were convicted.

The Republic versus Sunday Peter @ Massawe and Gabril Daniel Kijenge @ Gabo - No. 37 of 2014


The accused persons on 12.07.2014 at Kaloleni area within Arusha city were found in unlawful possession of five ivory tusks the property of Tanzania Government. In this case, Anti-poaching Unit received a tip from an informer that the accused person were in possession of ivory tusks and were looking for a buyer. The Unit set up a trap where the informer agreed to meet the accused person in Meru Inn Hotel. The accused persons arrived at the hotel with two bags and entered the informer room. The Anti-Poaching Unit stormed the room and found the informer and accused persons. However, the second accused person escaped the arrest. He was soon arrested and joined in the case. Upon searching the room, two bags were found with ivory tusks in them. Manager of the Hotel was called to witness and sign the certificate of seizure together with the informer and the first accused person. The first accused was found guilty while the second accused person was found not guilty.

The Republic versus Yohane Siwinga and six others - No. 01 of 2011


That on 8th December, 2011 at Itumba area within Mpanda District in Rukwa region the accused persons were arraigned and found in unlawful possession of government trophies. Also the accused persons were found in unlawful possession of two muzzle gun and ammunitions. A charge was brought before the court for accused persons to answer. The accused persons were convicted.

Defenders of Wildlife v. Hogarth


Fishermen in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean sought to exploit the synergy between dolphins and yellowfin tuna and began adopting a fishing method called purse seine fishing. Fishermen using this method inevitably set their nets around dolphins and tuna alike. This fishing method resulted in the deaths of millions of dolphins and prompted a public outcry that eventually resulted in legislation banning the method. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), disallowed the taking of marine mammals designated as “depleted” and further banned importation of fish or fish products caught using technology that resulted in incidental kill or serious injury to marine mammals in excess of U.S. standards. The International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA), revised the MMPA to provide new import criteria for tuna products. In the IDCPA, Congress charged the Secretary of the Commerce with drafting implementing regulations, which eventually became the “Interim-Final Rule,” some of the provisions of which are at issue in this case. On February 8, 2000, the plaintiffs (a number of environmental groups, including Defenders of Wildlife) filed suit in the Court of International Trade and the Court denied the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion. The plaintiffs now appeal. The Court of Appeals dealt with the two following questions: First, the plaintiffs denounce the inconsistency between the IDCPA and the Interim-Final Rule regarding the backdown procedure. Whereas the IDCPA provided that any regulations must “ensur[e] that the backdown procedure ... has begun no later than 30 minutes before sundown,” 16 U.S.C. § 1413(a)(2)(B)(v) the Interim-Final Rule stated that, “the backdown procedure must be completed no later than one-half hour after sundown…” 50 C.F.R. § 216.24(c)(6)(iii). Given the contrasting language, the plaintiffs argued that the Interim-Final Rule was in violation of the authorizing statute. The court concluded that NMFS was authorized to alter the backdown procedure in the IDCPA, since the Interim-Final Rule was drafted in a manner consistent with the IDCP (the international conservation agreement giving rise to the IDCPA). Second, NEPA commands federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact study (EIS) when proposing “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c). When it is unclear whether a proposed action will “significantly affect” the environment, the agency prepares an environmental assessment (EA) in order to determine whether preparation of a full EIS is necessary. After preparing an EA in this case, NMFS decided that the Interim-Final Rule would not have a significant impact on the human environment so refrained from preparing an EIS and promulgated the rule. With regard to this charge, the court held that NMFS took a “hard look” at the dolphin mortality problem and the effects of the Interim-Final Rule on the environment, and considered the relevant areas impacted by its regulation. Additionally, according to the court, NMFS reasonably found that the preferred Interim-Final Rule would not have a significant impact on the dolphin stock in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean.