is what made him ask the complainant and her siblings do piece work at his house carrying bricks so that they could get money for their up keep. It was his evidence that he had refused to lend money to PW2, father of the complainant to buy a phone and that it was because of that this charge was looked up this story. It was his evidence that PW1 always spent time at his house because his own home had not food and she would eat vendor’s food without paying for it. DW2 testified that she and others have done piece work for the appellant on several occasions and PW1 was one of them. On all the occasions PW1 did not come earlier than everybody else and there was no time that she saw appellant come to the work site with PW1. It was her evidence that she and her friend were always the first to arrive at the plot for work. On one occasion PW1 had been hired to do work inside the house of the appellant and DW2 and others raised their concerns about this and queried PW1 about it. PW1 told DW2 that the appellant had sent PW1 to do the work inside his house but the work was completed the same day. PW1 reported to appellant about the concerns raised by DW2 and her friends and the following day appellant addressed them on the issue and the issue was resolved. DW3 testified that she used to do piece work with DW2 and PW1 and three others and no occasion did the appellant accompany PW1 to the work site, nor did he supervise the work on site and it is impossible therefore to imagine that the appellant had sex with the complainant. 7