Nobert Grahams v The State

The appellant, a German national who owned two farms in the Gwayi area, was charged with two offences under the Firearms Act. On 7 September 1996, his friend Vries (a tour operator and professional hunter who owned the surrounding farm Lion's Den) gave him a .223 rifle, one bullet, and a Land Cruiser to take a client (Mohamed) for target practice while Vries processed hunting forms at Hwange National Park. After completing the target practice on Lion's Den, the appellant decided to visit his own farm to check whether Nel (who occupied his property in disputed circumstances) was vacating. When the appellant arrived at his farm with Mohamed, an incident occurred involving Nel's employees which led to two charges: (1) possession of a rifle without a valid firearm certificate contrary to s 4(2) of the Firearms Act, and (2) knowingly pointing the rifle at a man called Nyoni without lawful cause contrary to s 27(b). The appellant was convicted on count one and acquitted on count two in the Hwange magistrate's court, and sentenced to a fine of $500 or two months' imprisonment in default.

• Whether the appellant's possession of the rifle fell within the exemption in s 8(9) of the Firearms Act which permits possession without a certificate when carrying a firearm belonging to another person 'under instructions from and for the use of that other person for sporting purposes only'
• Whether the phrase 'for the use of' in s 8(9) covered the appellant's possession of the rifle when it was to be used by Vries's client for target practice
• Whether the appellant's possession of the rifle after leaving Lion's Den to visit his own farm remained within the scope of Vries's instructions
• Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the technical nature of the offence

The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed in its entirety.

The binding legal principle is that the exemption in s 8(9) of the Firearms Act (permitting possession without a certificate when carrying a firearm 'under instructions from and for the use of' the certificate holder 'for sporting purposes only') is limited to the scope and purpose of the instructions given. Once a person deviates from those instructions and uses or possesses the firearm for purposes unrelated to and unauthorized by the certificate holder, the exemption no longer applies. Possession on a 'frolic of one's own' falls outside the statutory exemption even if the firearm was lawfully possessed initially under proper instructions.

The court noted that it became unnecessary to determine whether 'target practice' and 'hunting' fall within the meaning of 'sporting purposes' in s 8(9), as the appeal could be dismissed on the basis that the appellant's possession on his own farm was outside the scope of Vries's instructions. The court also observed that the word 'use' in s 8(9) should not be narrowly interpreted, and that use for the purposes of a tour operator's business (such as target practice to prepare clients for hunting) constitutes use by the tour operator himself.

This case is significant for its interpretation of firearms legislation exemptions, particularly s 8(9) of Zimbabwe's Firearms Act. It establishes important principles regarding the scope and limits of exemptions from firearm certificate requirements, emphasizing that exemptions must be strictly construed and that possession under instruction must remain within the scope and purpose of those instructions. The judgment clarifies that 'use' in the context of firearms exemptions can extend to business use by a professional hunter/tour operator even when the immediate physical use is by a client, but that such exemption is limited to the specific authorized purpose and does not extend to unrelated activities undertaken on the possessor's own initiative.