went to school. That he was at all times aware that the complainant was a grade 9 student. That it was reasonably expected and apparent that the complainant would have been under the age of 18 years and this was established. It is their further submission that the accused was in a position of trust and authority as a teacher. That no academic reasons could be put forward for the presence of the complainant in his house, the accused not being her academic teacher. Counsel for the state, submitted that the case for the defence has been sketchy or inconsistent through out the trial. That the defence had at the beginning adopted the defence of consent, then later to describing the features of the complainant as being sufficient proof that she was 18 years and above. That the only conclusion to be reached is that the accused had committed the offence for which he is charged. Let me now turn to the evidence before the court. The prosecution has established that the complainant was under the age of 18 years at the time of the offence by exhibits 4 and 5. Also the complainant was a grade 9 student which the accused knew and admitted. That assuming she started school at grade 1 at 8/9 she would still be under 18years at grade 9. The evidence of the accused on the other hand is that from his conversation with the complainant he never thought that she was a young girl and did in fact believed that she was 18 years and above. That as a man and a teacher it occurred to him that the complainant was 18 years and above because of her size. That she was big and tall like all her friends and matured. The accused however stated that the complainant looks different now because she was bigger then. Having listened to the evidence of the accused, it is my view that he has not established his defence of reasonable cause to believe in any material particular. The accused admitted that the complainant was a grade 9 student. He further gave evidence that his belief about the average age of students who finish grade 9 was 17 years or above. He did not lead any evidence in his defence to establish the size and maturity of the complainant he referred to at the time. The fact that the complainant was not an innocent child in that she had had a previous sexual intercourse does not in itself prove that she is 18 years and above. In the absence of any convincing evidence from the defence on whom the burden had shifted to establish their alleged defence and in the light of the prosecutions evidence, I cannot but to draw the conclusion I have been invited to draw by the prosecutions and which is that the accused had reasonable believe that the complainant was under the age of 16 years as amended to 18 years at the time of the offence. A reasonable man in my opinion would in consideration of the surrounding circumstances and evidence in this case, believe that the complainant was under the age of 18 years at the time of the offence. In the premise therefore, I hold that the prosecutions from the totality of the evidence before this court has proved their case beyond all