Mtengie Mark and others v. R., Crim. App. 237-A-69, 24/11/69, Platt J.

Mtengie Mark and others v. R., Crim. App. 237-A-69, 24/11/69, Platt J.

The appellant Mtengie Mark and fourteen other appellants pleaded guilty in the terms “true” to being in unlawful possession of a Government trophy contrary to sections 49 and 53 of the Fauna Conservation Ordinance Cap. 302. The appellants admitted that they had five tons of elephant meat on the 1^st September 1969. The facts put forward by the prosecution contained the allegation that the appellants had no permit to kill elephants or possess elephant’s meat. They did not specifically accept this fact, but were nevertheless convicted. It is now said on appeal that the appellants were partners in a business selling elephant meat lawfully shot by some European hunters of Wildlife Services Ltd. They had acquired a permit from the Game Division of the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, dated the 24^th August 1969 to sell the meat. A Photostat copy was attached to the petition of appeal. This permit is relevant to the Mkomazi game Reserve where the offence took place, and the meat was specified as that of the animals shot by the Wildlife Services Ltd.

            Held: “I am told that the document was not a forgery as far as these appellants are concerned. The Game Assistant and Officer in charge of the Mkomazi game Reserve admitted that he issued such permits and that in his absence he had instructed his assistant, a Game Scout called Hamisi Rajabu Mwamba to issue permits. The permit in question was in fact issued by Mwamba. It seems a pity that the appellants could not have said so at once in this Court. But their difficulty might well have been that the legitimacy of the game Assistant and his Game Scout in issuing these permits may have been suspect. For when the documents were seized from the appellants, the Game representative of Moshi and a Game Officer from Arusha advised the Moshi Police that the permit had been issued by an unauthorised person. It seems to have been this aspect of the case which has caused all the trouble because on the strength o the permit’s apparent illegitimacy the appellants were charged, and possibly did not think they could rely upon it at the trial, and possibly were even diffident in this Court of explaining its origin. The course which should now be adopted is clear. The appeal must be allowed because although the officials concerned appear to have been unauthorised to issue the permit, they have issued it and as far as the appellants are concerned that is an authorisation to possess the elephant meat.” Appeal allowed.