Judgment No CCZ 1/2015 5 Const. Application No SC 54/11 common cause that between 16 October 2008 and 10 November 2008 the matter could not proceed as the police could not locate the applicant at his residence. On 8 December 2008 the applicant’s legal practitioners sought a postponement of the case as they had misplaced the State papers that they had been served with. The matter was postponed to 20 January 2009 for trial. On 20 January 2009 the matter did not proceed as the applicant’s legal practitioner was not present necessitating the postponement of the matter to 9 February 2009. On the evidence that is on the record, the State alleges that the delay is attributable to the applicant while the applicant alleges that it was the State that failed to prosecute him on time. It should be noted that although the police stated in their evidence that the matter failed to commence on a number of occasions because they could not locate the applicant, an examination of the evidence does not disclose why he could not be located. This issue was not considered during the hearing before the court a quo. The police diary logs do not indicate what efforts were made to serve the applicant with the summons. It is left open to conjecture that it could very well be that the applicant was merely not at his place of residence when they arrived to serve him. There is no indication on the papers that the applicant had put himself beyond the reach of the police. From the record it is also clear that the State failed to prosecute the applicant because on several occasions the State witnesses failed to turn up even though the applicant was present. It is common cause that at some stage the State had to have a warrant of arrest issued against its own witnesses because they failed to attend court. On 9 February 2009 when the trial was supposed to commence the applicant then made an application to have the matter referred to this Court arguing that his rights to a