of the court, the Complainant was sentenced to one week imprisonment. 5 There is nothing indicating that this period of imprisonment was extended. After serving his jail term, the Complainant took about six months until 12 January 2004 when he lodged a constitutional application being High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No 22 of 2004. He does not proffer any explanation for taking that long before commencing the appropriate proceedings. Clearly, the period up to 12 January 2004 cannot be attributed to the Respondent State. 47. Concerning Miscellaneous Civil Application No 22 of 2004, the Commission notes that the matter was referred to the Chief Justice on 13 January 2004 for directions, which included the constitution of a bencl1. of three judges to sit as a Constitutional Court. Despite having been certified as urgent, the Chief Justice stalled the matter and only issued the necessary directions on 6 June 2007. The Respondent State does not offer any explanation for the CChief Justice's delay of close to three years and five months in issuing the necessary directions. 48. Further, after Miscellaneous ,Civil Application No 22 of 2004 was dismissed on 7 December 2007, the Complainant immediately filed a notice-of appeal in the High Court. However, he was only able to lodge the actual appeal in the Court of Appeal on 18 Dec~mber 2008 (Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008). There is a period of one year between the date of lodging a notice of appeal in the court a quo and the date of lodging the actual appeal in the court ad quern. The Complainant has produced a series of letters spanning the entire one year in which he was requesting the Registrar to avail him with certified copies of the record of proceedings in the High Court to enable him to lodge a record of appeal in the Court of Appeal. There is no explanation from the Respondent State as to why the Registrar took so long to provide the record of proceedings. 49. Furthermore, the ,Compl~inant alleges that after lodging Civil Appeal No 266 of 2008 on 18 December 2008, the Chief Justice once again stalled for time until 5 March 2009 when he permitted the appeal to be set down for hearing on 9 June 2009. 50. On 9 June 2009, the judges who were empanelled to hear the appeal recused themselves. Since then, Civil Appeal No 266 of 2008 has never been set down for hearing. At the time of submitting this Communication, Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008 had been pending for almost five years. The Complainant would have all this delay attributed to the Respondent State. On its part, in arguing that the ~i~-~-~-¾~ ~o 5 After the ruling dismissing Civil Application No. 554 of 2003 was read out on 2 Complainant is on record to have said the following to the judge: "I am not happy. T ·· · · ' weeks to write aruling. It was to consult and must have been directed to help these people. Wl'll 1f . I am saying you are ven; unfair to me and you can cite me for contempt", upon which the j _ e Ngoge is obviously in contempt of court. He is ordered to be imprisoned for one w eek." · ~ g \!l ll·_ ' ,l _ Z '"A -. (, " 4 fl~