20 pay lobola. As your wife did it mean that she had to do as you told her? Was she a subordinate to you? Did she have to listen to you as being your wife? --- That is right yes.’ [42] However there was an additional and important element to the appellant’s testimony. He maintained that the process which he had followed to obtain a “wife” was that of his culture and tradition. His testimony was as follows: ‘Okay, Mr Jezile, is there anything else that you would like to explain to this court? --- What I wanted from them, that of my heart is to get a wife and then to use the protocol, to do the right thing, involve the elderly people so that I can get a wife that I can stay with, not at all there to play … (indistinct) to. And I wanted to follow the tradition and do the right things and follow my fathers and my forefathers, to do things according to our tradition.’ [43] Significantly the appellant’s evidence was that he believed that his custom did not permit forced marriages, and thus if the complainant had ever truly expressed the wish not to marry him or remain married to him, she would have been free to leave. This evidence conflicted with that of the appellant’s last witness, Professor Francois De Villiers, who was called as an expert in customary law. [44] His opinion was that the process followed by the appellant to obtain a “wife” was, broadly speaking, in accordance with traditional custom, although it was common cause that there had been no compliance with the provisions of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998. Professor De Villiers