WILDLEX

The appellants appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court. The grounds for the appeal were that the admissions made to Mr Kao of the Ministry of Wildlife and Conservation were inadmissible for not being made freely and voluntarily, with which the High Court agreed.

Offence is alleged to have occurred on 7 September 2009 at or near Mahango Game Park (in the district of Rundu). The accused wrongfully and unlawfully hunted 3 kudus without a special permit. He was wrongly sentenced to a fine of N$3000 Namibian dollars or in default of payment 20 months’ imprisonment.

In the lower court, accused 1 and 2 were convicted of count 1, contravening sections 1,30(1)(b), (30)(1)(c), 85, 89 A of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975 as amended read with ss 90 and 250 of Act 51 of 1977. Accused 5 was convicted of the first alternative to count 1 – Possession of game meat contravening s 51 of Ordinance 4 of 1975.

The appellants appeared before the District Magistrates’ Court on two charges of contravening the Nature Conservation Ordinance, 1975 relating to hunting specially protected game, (namely: three elephants) without a permit and possession of six elephant tusks.

Two men were charged, in the Magistrate’s Court at Okahandja for contravening section 30 (1)(a), read with section 1, 30(1)(b) + (c), 85, 89 and 89A of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975 as amended, and further read with sections 90 and 250 of Act 51 of 1977; that is hunting a warthog at Farm Ouparakane without a permit and theft of the

The respondent was charged with hunting huntable game and unlawful transportation of game meat without a permit. At the close of the State’s case, the magistrate, in accordance with section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, discharged the respondent.

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.