Judgment No. CCZ 9/14 4 Const. Application No. CCZ 276/12 In their application for referral before the Magistrates Court, the applicants alleged that their rights to a fair trial within a reasonable period as guaranteed under s 18 (2) of the former Constitution had been infringed. After a consideration of the authorities and mindful of the delay of thirteen (13) years that had elapsed from the time that the applicants were charged to the date of trial, the learned magistrate formed the view that the application was not frivolous or vexatious. He concluded that it was a proper case for consideration by the Supreme Court as to whether or not the right of the applicants to a fair trial within a reasonable period had been infringed. He then referred the matter to this court. He was correct. The applicants did not file a draft order but all prayed for a permanent stay of the prosecution of charges that had been preferred against them. Various decisions emanating from this Court have set out the factors to be taken into account in determining an application of this nature. In S v Nhando & Others 2001 (2) ZLR 84, CHIDYAUSIKU ACJ (as he then was) set out the relevant authorities wherein the factors were considered by this Court in determining an alleged violation under s 18 (2) of the Constitution. This is what he stated at p 84G-85B: “This court has had occasion to deal with similar applications on a number of occasions. The following are some of the cases: In Re Mlambo 1991 (2) ZLR 339 (S); Hungwe & Ors v Attorney-General S-50-94; S v Mataruse S-101-94; S v Marisa S126-95; S v Musvitis & Anor S-229-93; In Re Masendeke 1992 (2) ZLR 5 (S); Martin v Attorney-General & Anor S-53-93. The above line of cases establishes that in determining such an application as this one the following factors are to be taken into account: (a) the length of the delay; (b) the reasons for the delay; (c) the assertion by the accused of his or her right to a speedy trial;