Judgment No. CCZ 12/14 8 Civil Appeal No. SC 327/12 In her application before the court a quo, the applicant attached an affidavit in which she explained the basis of her request for the matter to be referred to the Supreme Court. She did not give oral evidence. In the affidavit she stated that she had not contributed to the delay in any way and that it was the State that had employed dilatory tactics in the prosecution of the matter. The State however led evidence from the Investigating Officer. His evidence was that the police force, like most other State entities in the country, was affected by the economic difficulties of 2008 – 2009. The result was that the police had no resources to look for Muderede who was in Banket and at one stage was reportedly in South Africa. Instructions had also been issued for further investigations to be carried out after the withdrawal of the charges in 2008. The main cause of the delay however was the fact that the applicant filed two complaints in 2009 and 2010 based on the same facts. The result was that Muderede, who had been complainant earlier, also became an accused. The witness explained that the applicant brought a lot of pressure to bear on the police. She made reports against several police officers including the investigating officer to Police General Headquarters. She wanted her complaint tried first. Muderede too complained that the police were giving preferential treatment to the applicant. It was because of this situation that an agreement was then reached between the applicant, the State and Muderede that the matter in which the applicant was complainant be tried first. If Muderede was convicted then his complaint would die a natural death. However if he was acquitted then the case in which the applicant was the accused would be resuscitated. On that basis, Muderede was tried and was acquitted. Consequently applicant was then summoned so that she would undergo trial on the allegations levelled by Muderede.