Judgment No CCZ 1/2015 6 Const. Application No SC 54/11 speedy trial had been violated. It took the trial magistrate several months to determine the application. The application for referral was only granted on 1 September 2009. On a careful examination of the reasons given for the delay in commencing the trial, it seems to me that the delay may be ascribed to both the applicant and the respondent. In these circumstances the applicant cannot rely on the delay as a reason for seeking a permanent stay of the criminal proceedings. WHETHER THE APPLICANT ASSERTED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A SPEEDY TRIAL In order for this Court to properly determine whether or not the applicant is entitled to the relief that he seeks he must show that he asserted his rights to a speedy trial. In S v Banga 1995(2) ZLR 297 (S), it was held as follows:“….the applicant must assert his right to a trial within a reasonable time. A failure to object along the way until the stage is reached when the State is able to commence the trial will lead to the inevitable inference that the accused was quite content to leave the situation in abeyance in the hope that somehow the charge would be forgotten; and that his eleventh hour protest was nothing more than a desperate tactic to avoid the outcome of the trial” It is apparent that throughout this period the applicant did not demand a trial. No evidence was led on any attempts made by the applicant to object to the delay to bring him to trial. All he did was to make an application for a refusal for further remand until the State withdrew the matter before plea on 10 December 2007. There is no indication on the papers that he ever demanded that the matter be heard. To the contrary, it appears that he was more concerned about the demands upon his time when he attended court and therefore wanted the charges withdrawn against him.