.... ,,• • J20 performance at school, her bitterness towards the appellant to the extent of avoiding to go home after school and sleeping in the class room, the appellant's failure to inform her mother of what he termed as promiscuous behaviour. Mrs. Kachaka argued that these amounted to something more or ) supporting evidence even if the trial court did not specifically mention "corroboration" she was nevertheless mindful of the need for corroboration in sexual offence cases. With regard to the appellant's argument that the prosecutrix failed to make an early report of the alleged sexual abuse or assault, she argued that according to the evidence, she reported the matter to her grandmother and PW3 after some days. She submitted that there was no contention on that in cross-examination of either, PW3 or the prosecutrix. It is her contention that even if she reported after two months, she found solace in the Supreme Court's observations in the case of CHRISTOPHER NONDE LUSHINGA v THE PEOPLE where it stated that: "He was a person they regarded as a parent and so it is true that they feared to disclose what was happening to their mother. However, their action of telling their friend showed that they were distressed about the whole issue. The medical reports for both victims confirm that they were both defiled. The accused only makes a general denial in his defence."