"No plaintiff in any action for breach of promise of marriage can recover a verdict, unless his or her testimony is corroborated by some other material evidence in support of such promise; and the fact that the defendant did not answer letters affirming that he had promised to marry the plaintiff is not such corroboration. (b) Accomplice before or after the fact and particepis criminis. Section 179 of Evidence Act. (c) Treason and treasonable offences and charge of perjury Section 179(1)(2)(a) and (b), (3), (4) and (5) Evidence Act, and (d) Exceeding speed limit, sedition and sexual offences". A piece of evidence therefore which verifies and validates or reinforces another piece of evidence of the same facts is a corroboration of the other existing one. Where a piece or pieces of evidence require corroboration, the corroborative evidence should consist of any independent testimony which must confirm in some material particulars the evidence in need of corroboration; and in criminal cases implicates the accused. R. v. Baskerville (1916) 2 K.B. 658; and Jatau v. Danladi (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.415) 592/614 - 615 per Orah JCA. In the appeal at hand the victim a 7-year old girl gave unsworn testimony in which she vividly implicated the appellant. But no reasonable tribunal can convict solely on her evidence. That evidence needs corroboration to convict. The senior brother of the prosecutrix, a child, testified as PW2. He too gave unsworn testimony. His evidence clearly cannot supply the required corroboration. It is the law that evidence of accomplice and that of a child requires corroboration. R v. Omisade (1964) NMLR 67/88; and Odofin Bello v. State (1967) NMLR 1. In the English case of R. v. Baskerville supra it was stated that corroborated evidence is evidence which shows or tends to show that the story of the