certain acts towards committal proceedings, namely to conduct thorough investigations including compiling statements of witnesses, submitting same to the directorate of public prosecution which shall assess whether the case warrants putting the accused on trial and draw up a report which shall then be submitted to the High Court. The performance of these acts obviously requires some time, the length of which may be contingent on the calendar of activities of the judicial authorities involved. 66. With respect to the commencement of the trial, the Court notes that, after the Applicant was committed to the High Court for trial on 3 June 2009, his trial actually commenced only on 30 November 2012. The Court recalls that, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Respondent State’s law cited earlier, trial shall commence in such cases as soon as practicable. 67. In the present Application, the Court observes that after the Applicant was committed to the High Court for trial on 3 June 2009, the matter was adjourned to the next session to be fixed by the District Registrar on a date to be notified and the Applicant was remanded in custody. When the matter was next brought for hearing on 31 May 2012, it was adjourned again as the session had come to an end. On 27 and 29 November 2012 respectively, the prosecution requested again for two further adjournments on account of ongoing hearings in other cases, which had yet to be completed. The Applicant’s trial eventually started on 30 November 2012. 68. The Court observes that the crux of the instant case is whether the successive adjournments of the Applicant’s trial constituted sufficient justification for the length of time being complained of. As earlier noted, criminal trials in the Respondent State are conducted by sessions and expediency in respect of cases being tried is contingent not only on the calendar of sessions, but also on the scheduling of pending matters. As it arises from the record of the present Application, the Applicant’s trial was deferred on successive occasions due to lack of time as the sessions had come to a close before the matter could be heard. It is also ascertained that matters, which had been awaiting trial prior to the Applicant’s committal 19