Judgment No. CCZ 9/14 7 Const. Application No. CCZ 276/12 Nyabondo had an almost identical story to tell. He confirmed that he remained within the country the entire period that the charges were pending. He had also been advised that the trial could not proceed in the absence of Mukandi although the reason for that decision had not been explained. He confirmed that when the magistrate removed him and his colleagues from remand, they were advised that if anything happened they would be called to court for trial. In turn, Meman confirmed the several remands at the instance of the State and the fact that further remand was refused by the magistrate in January 2000. He confirmed that he had been made aware of summons in December 2011. He went to the Police Station and collected the summons but again the State was not ready for trial resulting in the applicants applying for the matter to be referred to the Supreme Court on the alleged violation of their constitutional right to a fair trial. The application is opposed by the State. However, the State did not adduce evidence before the court a quo or before this Court. Mrs Fero, who appeared for the State, placed reliance on heads of argument filed in answer to those filed by the applicants. There was no contest by the State on the facts placed before the court a quo by the applicants. The State accepts that the overall delay in having the applicants brought to trial was thirteen (13) years, and that the delay is presumptively prejudicial so as to trigger an enquiry by this Court into a possible contravention of s 18 (2) of the former Constitution of Zimbabwe.