Judgment No. CCZ 9/14 9 Const. Application No. CCZ 276/12 Within this jurisdiction, lesser periods of delay have been held to be unreasonable. In S v Nemutenzi 1992(2) ZLR 233 (H), it was held that a delay of four years eleven months was inordinate, resulting in the court granting a permanent stay. In Re Mlambo, (supra) a delay of four years seven months wholly attributable to the State was held to have constituted a grievous infringement of the applicant’s right to a fair trial justifying a permanent stay of prosecution. In S v Musvitisi & Another SC 229/93, the court considered that a delay of two years and five months might be presumptively prejudicial and an enquiry into other factors was conducted to determine whether or not the applicants’ rights to a fair trial within a reasonable period had been infringed. Similarly, in S v Watson 2006 (1) ZLR 394, a delay of ten years in between the arrest of the applicant and bringing the applicant to trial was held to be inordinate and a violation of his fundamental right to a fair trial within a reasonable period. The prosecution was accordingly stayed. The applicants contend that the State has not adduced any evidence to explain the initial delay as a result the magistrate refused to keep the applicants on remand. I agree. The State has the onus to give an explanation for the delay for which it has accepted responsibility. Mrs Fero, on behalf of the State, accepted that prejudice can be presumed in casu. It is a real possibility that in a period of thirteen years the memories of witnesses and those of the applicants would have faded. Further, the witnesses and those sought to be tried will recall certain aspects of the case and forget others. From submissions filed by Mrs Fero it seems that the applicants were arrested before investigations had been completed and that further investigations continued