Page 7 I wish to dual specifically with a ground of appeal on the merits which perhaps requires more serious consideration than the others. I refer to the ground which contends that the Learned Chief Justice 'erred in finding that Respondent's evidence need not be corroborated in the claim for seduction'. The South African courts held for many years that in seduction and paternity cases, a woman's testimony against a man's, requires corroboration. This rule of practice was, however, finally abandoned in Mayer vs Williams 1981 (3) S.A. 348 (A). In summarising the reasons for this conclusion, Trengove, J.A. says the following : '(a) the rule is based on a misunderstanding of RomanDutch procedure in actions of this nature (see Davel vs Swanepoel (supra at 388); F P van den Heever Breach of Promise and Seduction in SA Law at 51-59; Schmidt Bewysreg at 48); (b) it seems to me to be an anomaly that "in any field of investigation a greater certainty of proof may be required where civil rights are in issue than when a person is being tried criminally". (See R v W (supra at 779-780)); (c) the rule as formulated is, in my view, inappropriate in our modern system of civil trial procedure. (See F P van den Heever (op cit at 59); Hoffman SA Law of Evidence 2nd ed at 410); and (d) the rule appears to have been excluded by the provisions of s 16 of Act 25 of 1965. I am of the opinion, therefore, that courts should no longer, as a matter of law, insist upon corroboration of the evidence of complainants in paternity or seduction cases.1 He continues in his judgment, however, to confirm that in cases of this nature there is a need for special caution in scrutinising and weighing the evidence of the complainant. He goes on to say 'Experience has shown that it is essential for the purpose of doing justice between the parties in this class of case -