Judgment No CCZ 1/2015 4 Const. Application No SC 54/11 I will examine each of the above factors in turn. THE LENGTH OF THE DELAY The right to a hearing within a reasonable time is enshrined in the Constitution. Although the term “reasonable time” is not defined in the Constitution this depends on the circumstances of each case. In the case of In Re Mlambo (supra) a delay of four years and seven months was held to be presumptively prejudicial. It was further held that the time frame commences from the date of arrest and that a withdrawal of charges before plea does not interrupt the time frame. In the case of Shumba v Attorney General 1997 (1) ZLR 589 (S) a delay of six months was held to be too short to give rise to an enquiry. In this case it was common cause that at the time that the application for referral was made there had been a delay of three years and ten months. Taking into account that this was not a particularly complicated case, the matter should have been finalised in a much shorter period. In the circumstances, it is my view that the delay in this case was presumptively prejudicial. THE EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY The applicant was on remand from 21 April 2005 to 10 December 2007 when the charges were withdrawn before plea. It is not in dispute that the State failed to proceed to trial on 10 December 2007 because the witnesses failed to attend court. Thereafter a warrant for their arrest was issued and they were subsequently arrested and brought to court. It is