4 In both his cautionary statement - exhibit “A” and his evidence-in-chief before this court, the accused stated that it was the prosecutrix who came visiting him and that he unsuccessfully persuaded her to go back home. These pieces of evidence were never challenged but rather reinforced by the evidence of DW2. He maintained that he met the prosecutrix once in December 2010 in the accused person’s house. That on the 4th of January 2011, he called the accused, and the accused passed him over to the prosecutrix. He requested her to allow the accused join him for dinner but she turned off the phone on him. These pieces of evidence were never challenged by the prosecution. The effect, and as settled in a number of decided authorities, is that unchallenged or uncontroverted fact or facts need no further proof. See the Gambian Court of Appeal Case of ANTOINE BANNA V. OCEAN VIEW RESORT LTD. (2008) 1 GLR 1. It remains admitted as establishing the facts alleged therein MOZIE v. MBA MALU (2006) 25 NSCQR 425. On the strength of these authorities, I am inclined to hold that the girl WUDAY TABALLY was never taken away or detained by the accused and that it was her decision to remain with the accused person herein and this I shall also hold as a fact. Its stands therefore that the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily prove the offence charged in Count II. This Count must therefore fall to the ground. With regards to the Section 121 Count, the evidence of the prosecutrix is that “…The accused took me to his house and lay me on the bed and