'' . .l J17 He, therefore, prayed that this Court allows this ground of appeal, quashes the conviction, sets aside the sentence and sets the appellant at liberty forthwith. By way of introduction of the Respondent's submissions, Mrs. Kachaka submitted that the appellant's conviction for the subject offence is on firm ground and she implored this Court not to interfere with the conviction. She responded to ground one by submitting that there is corroborative evidence in relation to the commission of the offence as well as the perpetrator's identity. She submitted that the Court considered the need for corroboration in sexual offences. She drew the Court's attention to the fact that the trial court indicated that the appellant and the prosecutrix are related and are uncle and niece respectively. The Court also considered the fact that the appellant kept the prosecutrix at his home from 2012 to September, 2015. It further observed that, therefore, the appellant is a person who is well known to the prosecutrix such that the question of mistaken identity does not arise. The appellant is a person that she regarded as a parent. To support that position, Mrs. Kachaka relied on the case of CHRISTOPHER LUSHINGA v THE PEOPLE7 which she