When Martha, PW1, took the stand she testified that she stays in the same location with the appellant who sells shoes. She testified that sometime in March 2007 the appellant enticed her to have sex with him but she refused and continued to do so on a daily basis but she resisted him. Then in November 2007 he finally managed to convince her to have sex with her. Martha’s parents had gone to the village and Martha was left alone with her siblings. The sex took place in the same bathroom at 10.00 in the morning and the appellant gave PW1 K50.00 and told her not to reveal to anybody. The wife of the appellant had gone to her village at the material time. PW1 explained that when the appellant called her into the said bathroom he asked her to bend over and he had sex with her whilst she was bent over. This was the beginning of several sexual episodes with the appellant and on each event he would offer her some reward with an admonition not to reveal to anybody what was happening between them. PW1 recalled of a day when the appellant asked PW1 and her relatives to do some piece work at his house. She went ahead of everybody and had sex with the appellant before her relatives arrived and they all did the piece work. Then again he asked PW1 and her relatives to do piece work and she went ahead of everybody but on this day she refused to have sex with the appellant. Then the last incident took place in PW4’s bathroom at about 8.00 pm and they were found in the act – this was on 15 January 2008 and PW4 reported the matter to PW2, the complainant’s father. Complainant’s father asked her what had happened and she explained to him that what had taken place in the bathroom and the matter was reported to the village headman then to police and then appellant was arrested. Then police sent her to hospital. 3