Judgment No. CCZ 11/14 5 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 4/13 been violated or not. The following are the factors to be taken into account in making a determination – 1. the explanation and responsibility for the delay; 2. the assertion of his right by the accused person; 3. the prejudice arising from the delay; and 4. the conduct of the prosecution and of the accused person in regard to the trial. The case of In Re Mlambo supra has been followed in numerous cases. In the case of S v Banga 1995 (2) ZLR 297 (S) at pp 300 F-G the Court had this to say: “The principles which govern applications of this nature are now well settled. They were set out in In re Mlambo (supra) and have since been applied on many occasions; more recently in Hungwe & Ors v A-G S-50-94; S v Matarutse S-101-94 and S v Marisa S-126-95. In this application, the period of slightly over four years was presumptively long enough to trigger an enquiry into the factors that go into the balance in the determination of whether the delay in bringing the applicant to trial was reasonable in the pertaining circumstances. These factors are – (i) the explanation and responsibility for the delay; (ii) the assertion by the applicant of his fundamental right to a hearing of the case within a reasonable time; (iii) the existence of any prejudice suffered by the applicant resulting from the delay.” To enable this Court to properly determine the factors set out in In re Mlambo supra, certain peremptory requirements have to be met by the applicant making such an application. In Banga’s case supra at pp 300G-301B the Court pronounced itself as follows: “Regrettably, the manner in which the legal practitioner requested the referral was totally misconceived. It was wholly insufficient to make a statement from the bar, and then to point solely to the length of the delay. He was obliged to call the applicant to testify to the extent to which, if at all, the cause of the delay was his