But it was wrong for the trial court to hold that there was a sufficient corroborative evidence The corroboration required under S.182(3) of the Evidence Act is not, as held in R. v. Ibe 4 WACA P.131: "Corroboration of the detail of the crime ....., but some independent testimony which affects the accused by tending to connect them with the crime " See also Mbele v. State (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 484 at 500 per Agbaje JSC. That being the case, this appeal is meritorious and is therefore allowed. The judgment, conviction and sentences of the trial court are hereby set aside. In substitution therefore the appellant is hereby discharged and acquitted. OGUNTADE J.C.A.: I read before now a copy of the lead judgment by my learned brother Muntaka-Coomassie J.C.A. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion. I would also allow the appeal. The appellant is accordingly discharged and acquitted. EDOZIE, J.C.A.: The appellant Albert Igbine was on the 9th of January 1996 convicted by Thomas J of the High Court, Yola for the offence of raping Patience U. Essien a girl of 7 years of age. He was accordingly sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with hard labour and in addition a fine of N5,000 or 2 more years imprisonment in default of the fine. He has appealed to this court against his conviction. To my mind, the appeal turns principally on whether or not there was sufficient corroboration of the evidence of the victim of the rape that is, Patience U. Essien (PW3) and the evidence of her brother Abasima Udo Essien (PW2) who was 13 years old. The learned trial judge, quite rightly in my view, held on page 37 lines 27 to 31 as follows: