indeed admit all these facts before the lower court and did not bring any issues about age or the purported ages of the complainant’s siblings. The State opposed the appeal and filed skeletal arguments in that respect. The State is questioning why the Appellant should bring the issues only now when in the lower court he admitted the charge and when the facts were read out to him he also admitted that the facts were correct. I have looked at the matters that the Appellant has introduced in court and also wonder why the Appellant should only bring them now. In the lower court he admitted he had sex with the complainant on several occasions. He now alleges that this was consensual sex. However, the facts in the lower court state that he way led the complainant and defiled her. All this notwithstanding it should be made clear that because it was proved that the complainant is actually below the age of 13 years consent to sex is not immaterial. The Appellant stated that the complainant is the first born of 7 children and therefore the complainant could not have been 12 years. The fact that there are 6 other children after the complainant does not necessarily prove that the complainant is not 12 years old. Indeed the Appellant now, submits 3