Judgment No. CCZ 12/14 5 Civil Appeal No. SC 327/12 that the matter went nowhere. In an effort to make some progress the State then reached an agreement with the applicant and Muderede that the case in which Muderede was an accused was to be tried first. In the event that Muderede was convicted, then the case in which he was complainant would die a natural death. However in the event that he was acquitted, then the case in which applicant was an accused would then commence. As it so happened, Muderede was acquitted in 2012 as a result of which applicant was then summoned to appear in court. It was his evidence that it was the applicant who was largely to blame for the delay. The Magistrates court was of the view that since the applicant had participated in the agreement which had contributed to the delay she cannot now be heard to complain. On that basis the court found the application to be frivolous and vexatious. The court further found that the application was an attempt to further delay the proceedings. The court therefore dismissed the application. Following that decision the applicant filed the present application in terms of s 24(1) of the former constitution. THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION It seems to me that the issues that arise for determination are twofold. These are, firstly, whether the matter has been properly brought before this Court in terms of s 24(1) of the former Constitution. Secondly, if so, whether the applicant is entitled to a permanent stay of proceedings. WHETHER THE MATTER IS PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT In dismissing the application for the referral of the matter to the Supreme Court, the magistrate commented: “Accused now wants to renege from her commitment that she would only be prosecuted if only Cyril Muderede was acquitted because the facts forming the basis of the court charges were similar. Cyril Muderede has now been acquitted so the