12 was not the same on everything. The complainant readily admitted that she had no knowledge about arrangements between her parents and the appellant regarding the inspection of the house. She did not know the exact details regarding the payment arrangements that her mother and the appellant had testified on. When asked if the appellant had given her presents she replied that he had only lent her a television set. Her mother readily admitted that the appellant had connected power to their house and had once fixed a broken window. She also readily admitted that the nurse’s opinion was that the complainant had had sexual intercourse more than once. When it was put to her that the appellant would deny ever threatening the complainant she replied: ‘I do not know because it was just the two of them in the vehicle [the complainant] is the one who can tell what happened. Her spontaneous estimate of March as the time when the appellant told her to stop payment is consistent with the sequence of the relevant events. It was not in dispute that she discussed the unusual favours extended by the appellant with the appellant’s wife even before the visit that led to the complainant being taken to the clinic. [29] Indeed, at first glance the evidence of the appellant and his witness Mr Moepeng appears clean and not as afflicted by shortcomings as that of the complainant and her mother. That, in my view, is because the appellant’s defence was a bare denial. The only detail was in the order of picking up the children. Naturally that would limit the extent to which he and his witness would make mistakes. But even then his evidence was not without inconsistencies and obvious lies. [30] Firstly, his explanation for the favours he extended to the complainant was not reasonably possibly true. Regarding payment for the school transport, according to him he confronted the complainant’s mother because she had failed to pay him. But when the mother sought to withdraw the complainant from the transport arrangement he insisted that the complainant should continue travelling with him even though the mother was not paying. The explanation does not make sense. The evidence of the complainant and her mother about the television set was confirmed by Ms Mento who was not only an independent witness but the appellant’s former employee. The appellant’s evidence on this aspect was false beyond reasonable doubt. And there can be no reasonable doubt that these favours were designed to secure the