The appellant met Mr. Muller through his business of an electrical contractor. They became to know each other for more than ten years. During this period, the appellant saw some ivory in Muller's house, which might have encouraged the appellant to offer an illegal ivory deal to Muller.
The appellant was charged with hunting of specially protected game and arrested. They applied for bail and the magistrate declined the application until the investigations were finalised. The court mero motu raised the issue whether the matter was appealable given the apparent hybrid nature of the order given.
The appellant in this matter was found in possession of raw Ivory and sentenced. Which it seems, he claimed he was not involved with. He was charged with contravening section 2(1)(a), read with s. 1 of Proclamation AG 42 of 1980 (as amended). And found guilty.
The applicant filed an application on review seeking an order that would set aside the acquittal of the respondent. This court then focused on the interpretation of the phrase ’irregularity in the proceedings’. The court referred to several precedents that had stated that a mistake in law was not per se an irregularity.
The appellant was caught dealing illegally in ivory and charged with contravening section 2(1)(a) of the AG Proclamation 42 of 1980 – the controlled Games Products Proclamation. As a result, he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and 18 months of the sentence was suspended.
The appellants brought an appeal against the sentences handed down to them by the Magistrate, for being in possession of a live pangolin in contravention of teh Controlled Wildlife Act. The sentence imposed was 24 months imprisonment of which 12 months were suspended for 5 years on appropriate conditions.
The accused, in this automatic review matter, was tried in the Grootfontein Magistrate’s Court, on one count of hunting specially protected game, (namely: a giraffe, valued at N$9000-00) in contravention of section 26(1) of Ordinance 40 of 1975. He was convicted as charged and sentenced to five years direct imprisonment.
The plaintiff who was arrested for theft of 2 zebra skins, spent 32 days in custody awaiting trial. His case was later withdrawn. He then claimed N$277 200.00 from the defendant for wrongfully and maliciously setting the law in motion by laying a false charge against him.
The court considered a review of the court below’s finding relating to the accused’s charge. The accused was charged and convicted of contravening s 30 (1) of Ordinance 4 of 1975 for unlawfully hunting huntable game. The accused was found in possession of a shotgun, which he had used in the commission of the offence.