Judgment No. CCZ 12/14 6 Civil Appeal No. SC 327/12 natural interpretation of their agreement should follow. Accused participated in circumstances which caused the delay so she should not cry foul because if she had no hand in this matter the State could have proceeded to cause the trial of both matters at the same time but in different courts. Accordingly, I find that the application is just meant to further delay proceedings and it is frivolous and vexatious. Accordingly the application is dismissed.” It is common cause that, at the time of the making of the application, there had been a delay of over five years in the prosecution of the matter. That this delay was presumptively prejudicial is without doubt. The applicant was entitled to challenge the decision of the State to prosecute her on a charge of fraud in respect of which she had been charged more than five years previously. The delay was such as to trigger an inquiry into the possible violation of the applicant’s rights to the protection of the law. It is clear from his reasons for dismissing the request for referral that the Magistrate did not ask himself whether a constitutional issue did arise from the proceedings. He considered that the applicant had contributed to the delay and that she was trying to further delay the day of reckoning. On that basis alone he found the application to be frivolous and vexatious. I am satisfied that the Magistrate was wrong in determining the application on the basis of who was to blame for the delay. As Mr Mpofu correctly submitted, the Magistrate asked himself the wrong question and inevitably came to the wrong conclusion. Indeed the State conceded that the decision to refuse to refer the application was wrong and that it violated the applicant’s right to the protection of the law as provided in s 18(1) of the former Constitution.