21 referred to this non-compliance as a ‘defect’. His evidence was further that historically women and girls could indeed be forced into these “marriages”. It was in this context that he testified generally about the tension between traditional practices and constitutional imperatives, and that various legislative measures had been implemented to safeguard against such occurrences. The trial court’s judgment on conviction [45] In evaluating the evidence the magistrate, mindful of the cautionary rules pertaining to a single, youthful witness such as the complainant, found her testimony to be both honest and reliable. She found that there was no evidence to suggest that the complainant had willingly left her home without her mother’s knowledge or consent to be married to a complete stranger twice her age. The undisputed evidence was that the mother’s views and wishes would in any event have been disregarded by the complainant’s male relatives. This was borne out by the mother’s futile attempt to protect the complainant. The mother’s evidence corroborated that of the complainant about the latter’s attitude towards the “marriage”, and her escape from the appellant within days of it taking place. The trial court concluded that it was inconceivable that the complainant would willingly have subjected herself to the “marriage”. It was even the appellant’s evidence that the complainant was unhappy and ill at ease after her arrival at the “marital home”.