Section 103:

103. Right of accused to be represented by Counsel – Constitution section 10 (2)—The letter of Counsel made it clear that Counsel was labouring under a misunderstanding when he wrote that the case was coming pro forma. It was the appellant, his client, who gave him the wrong information. At first sight, therefore, it was the appellant’s fault if Counsel was not present on the day of trial and he had only himself to blame for that since the duty of ensuring the presence of Counsel on the day fixed for trial rests on the accused. There was no evidence on record that the Police has warned the appellant that the case was coming on the day fixed for trial and the record did not show whether the Magistrate sought any explanation from the appellant before informing him of his decision to refuse any postponement. The appellant was thus deprived of the right to be defended by Counsel in circumstances where the Supreme Court, which can only be guided by the record of the lower Court, cannot say whether the appellant was, as in the case of Dabeedeen, wholly responsible for the absence of his Counsel. Juste v R (1989).