Judgment No. CCZ 13/2015 4 Const. Application No. CCZ 56/13 robbery. On the record of the proceedings which has gone missing, he expressed the view, without substantiation, that the circumstances suggested collusion between the applicant and officers at the High Court to ensure that the matter was not concluded. [12] The applicant, exasperated by what he considered were unfounded allegations made by the trial judge against him, in a supplementary affidavit, denied that he had ever been convicted and that the proceedings had been postponed so that sentence could be pronounced. He stated that nothing further had happened after the closure of the defence case. He denied the suggestion that he may have had anything to do with the disappearance of the record of the proceedings, citing lack of capacity on his part, owing to the fact that he has always been in custody. [13] The matter was again set down before this Court on 12 March 2014. It became clear from the submissions made during that hearing that there was a dispute as to how far the matter had gone and whether it was still possible for the record of the proceedings to be reconstructed. The State however advised the Court that, at a meeting attended by both sides in the trial judge’s chambers, the latter had indicated that he was able to reconstruct the record of proceedings using notes provided by the prosecution. Following this revelation, this Court again postponed the matter and issued another order directing the Registrar of the High Court to attend to the reconstruction of the record, within thirty (30) days, with the assistance of both the State and Defence counsel, the assessors and other officials who had a role to play in the criminal proceedings. [14] Following upon the above order of this Court, a number of affidavits were filed: 14.1 Faith Rutendo Matuku, a legal process transcriber who transcribed tape numbers 11 to 22 (tape numbers 1-10 having been transcribed by