4 him for the complainant’s transport. Some time thereafter the appellant visited the complainant’s home and requested that the complainant should go and report to her maternal grandfather that ‘they’ would not be able to go to church. On this occasion, the appellant offered to lend the complainant a television set. He discouraged the complainant’s mother from telling her husband about the television offer, saying he was lending it to the complainant and not the family. He brought the television to the complainant’s home some days later. The complainant’s mother discussed with the appellant’s wife the appellant’s waiver of transport fees and lending the complainant a television set. In July of the same year the complainant visited her mother’s parents. Whilst there, she was sent by her grandmother to her home to ask for food. However, the complainant’s mother was visiting elsewhere and had left the house keys at the appellant’s home. The complainant fetched the keys on the mother’s telephonic instructions and went home. On her return, the complainant’s mother was told by a neighbour, Ms Tjulu, that the appellant had visited the complainant whilst the mother was away. This is the incident that led to the complainant being taken to the clinic. The mother’s evidence was that on learning about the appellant’s visit to her home in her absence, she again went to discuss her discomfort with the appellant’s wife who suggested that the complainant be taken to the clinic. [8] Ms Jeanette Mento previously worked at a crèche run by the appellant’s wife at the appellant’s home. She confirmed that she was present at the complainant’s home when the appellant brought the television set for the complainant. The evidence of the nurse, Ms Mogadile was that she examined the complainant on 18 July and observed healed scars on her private parts. Dr Gunaselva testified on the contents of the J88 medico legal report which he completed on his examination of the complainant. [9] The appellant denied ever having had sexual intercourse with the complainant. His evidence was that, contrary to the evidence of the complainant and her mother, the complainant would always be the last one to be fetched by him before going off to school. No sexual intercourse could have taken place in those circumstances. Regarding payment for the complainant’s transport he testified that the complainant’s mother ‘was not paying (him)’. When he confronted her about her failure to pay her response was that in future the complainant would only use the