be ignored. (See Sabuni v Uganda 1981 HCB page 1.) However, the third contradiction is a bit complicated. Its effect may not be easy to determine it’ its context is not well understood. Sarah is presently 17 years old or so. Therefore, it is not Out of place to conclude that she is still under the authority of her parents. At the time she gave her testimony her mother was just outside the court room; and probably some of her other relatives (who were not witnesses) in this case were seated inside the court room, From all appearances Sarah was placed in a dilemma as to how to answer the question concerning her virginity when Mr. Katongole (counsel for the accused) asked it, Taking into account all, Court thinks, too, that the last contradiction did not affect Sarah’s general credibility as a witness; and it must, therefore, be ignored. In disagreement with the lady and gentleman assessors for the reasons given above Court is of the opinion that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. In the circumstances, Court must reject the accused person’s defence, which was simply a pack of lies. All in all, Court has no choice but to find that the accused is guilty of the offence of defilement contrary to section 132(1) of the Penal Code Act; and it hereby proceeds to convict him accordingly. It is so ordered. E.S. Lugaizi (J) 19/10/2002 Read before: At 3.29 p.m. Accused in Court. Mr. Ndamurani for the State Mr. A. Katongole for accused The two assessors Mr. Senabulya c/clerk