S v Setsoale (A220/2006) [2006] ZAGPHC 157 (27 February 2006)

S v Setsoale (A220/2006) [2006] ZAGPHC 157 (27 February 2006)

The court found that the definition of 'game' in section 1 of the Limpopo Environmental Management Act refers exclusively to animals listed in Schedule 4, which does not include warthogs. The definition of 'wild animal' also refers to various schedules, none of which list warthogs. Therefore, the accused's conduct did not fall within the scope of section 38(1) of the Act. The conviction and sentence were not supported by the statutory provisions and must be set aside.

Citation
[2006] ZAGPHC 157
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Sprinkaan Setsoale
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2006
Case Number
A220/2006
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review Judgment
Outcome
Conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
S J Mynhardt, B R du Plessis
Legal Topics
Illegal Hunting, Statutory Interpretation, Definition of Game, Provincial Legislation
Criminal Law Environmental Law Illegal Hunting Statutory Interpretation Definition of Game Provincial Legislation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Sprinkaan Setsoale

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a warthog is classified as 'game' under the Limpopo Environmental Management Act 7 of 2003.
  2. 2 Whether the accused's conduct constituted an offence under section 38(1) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the definition of 'game' in section 1 of the Limpopo Environmental Management Act refers exclusively to animals listed in Schedule 4, which does not include warthogs. The definition of 'wild animal' also refers to various schedules, none of which list warthogs. Therefore, the accused's conduct did not fall within the scope of section 38(1) of the Act. The conviction and sentence were not supported by the statutory provisions and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence are set aside.