Section 115: Refusal of postponement – Withdrawal of Counsel—On the date of
consolidated text (as at 2017). juris shows the text as it was consolidated; it does not confirm that this is the law in force today.
115. Refusal of postponement – Withdrawal of Counsel—On the date of
trial, Appellant’s Counsel moved to withdraw from the case and Appellant
moved for a postponement to retain the services of another Counsel. The
Magistrate refused the postponement and the trial continued with him unrepresented. On appeal, the Appellant complained that he had been denied his
rights to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, and
to defend himself by Counsel of his choice, in breach of section 10 (2) (c)
and (d) of the Constitution.
HELD Appellant’s rights under section 10 (2) (c) and (d) of the Constitution had been breached. The Magistrate should not have allowed Counsel to
withdraw without first ensuring that the appellant had been given prior notice of Counsel’s intention and was agreeable thereto. As the Magistrate was
minded not to postpone the proceedings, he ought to have refused the motion to withdraw if he was of the view that it would result in a postponement. Having allowed Counsel to withdraw, the Magistrate ought to have
granted the appellant a postponement to prepare his case. Arlando v State
(2004).
CON – 197 [Issue 1]
The Constitution