[6] In support thereof he quoted the case of Rex v Janki 2 in which the High Court per Mahase J, held that a second class magistrate is not competent to preside in a matter in which the prescribed sentence is beyond eight years imprisonment. [7] He added per his written submissions that there has been inordinate delay in sentencing the accused as he was convicted in May 2013 and the delay poses a great prejudice on him on the basis of which he should be discharged. To this end, Counsel referred this Court to the case of R v Kopano Malunga 3 in which the learned Lehohla J discharged the accused who had similarly been committed for sentencing and where there had been undue delay in the prosecution of his sentence. [8] On the other hand Counsel for the Crown made the submission that the accused was properly convicted by the Court a quo in terms of the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. For purpose of the sentence itself, Ms Tsutsubi referred the Court to the provisions of section 32 (a) (v) of the Act which prescribes the minimum sentence for a first conviction under section 9 as fifteen years imprisonment. [9] With respect to the aspects that have to be considered when passing sentence, Counsel for the Crown quoted the case of The DPP v Tebang Khama 4 as well as that of Rex v Ranthithi & Ano 5 where it 2 CRI/S/10/2005 CRI/S/X/2007-CRI/S/2009 (unreported) 4 C of A (CRI) 8 OF 2008 (unreported) 5 C of A (CRI) 12 OF 2007 (unreported) 3