.

[Ruling]Criminal Procedure-application-application for the High Court file No.9/07 be closed and the case be acquitted-applicant having been arrested and released by the state law office-applicant having been arrested again due to the insistence of the deceased’s relatives-claims that his constitutional rights had been infringed-objection on the grounds that he should not be acquitted as he can seek compensation from the state-objection on the grounds that it was incompetent because it did not specify the provisions of law under which it was brought-effect of-court jurisdiction and supervisory role-substantive justice was not to be sacrificed at the alter of procedural rules-where there were duplicate police files containing statements which were different from those in the original police file-conspiracy to defeat justice-applicant’s right to seek compensation-duty of the courts to ensure that crime where it is proved, is appropriately punished-presumption of innocence-whether the State satisfied the court that the applicant was taken to court as soon as was reasonably practicable-whether the court should allow the application and issue an acquittal of the applicant-Constitution section 72 (6)

[Ruling]-constitutional law-fundamental rights-violation of fundamental rights-the applicant filed an application for  acquittal and termination of proceedings on the ground that his fundamental rights were violated by being in custody longer than the statutorily  required period -where the prosecution did not explain the inordinate delay-where it was the prosecutions contention that the accused should be compensated-whether it was proper to terminate the proceedings and acquit the applicant or to compensate the applicant

Constitutional law-where the applicant represented himself-whether a person acting for himself must adhere strictly to the rules of practice and procedure-whether the application was competent-Constitution section 72(3) (b),72 (6).

.

[Ruling] Criminal practice and procedure-murder-prima facie case-whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution was sufficient to establish a prima facie case to warrant the accused persons being placed on their defence.

Ruling]-constitutional law –fundamental rights-accused was charged with the offence of murder – where the accused challenged the fairness of the proceedings on the ground that he was incarcerated for a period of 7 months longer than that allowed under the constitution –where the prosecution did not attempt to explain the inordinate delay-whether the accused was entitled to an acquittal.