3 some distance away from home. The appellant provided transport for her and other children in the vicinity in his van. Initially, the complainant’s mother paid the appellant for these services; but in about March 2006 she stopped making payments for a reason I will discuss later in this judgment. [4] During July 2006 the complainant’s mother caused the complainant to be examined by a nurse at the local clinic, Ms Cecilia Mogadile. This was as a result of a suspicion held by the mother that the appellant had had sexual intercourse with the complainant. Before taking the complainant to the clinic the complainant’s mother confronted her with her suspicions. The complainant responded by crying. At the clinic the nurse confirmed that the complainant had been sexually penetrated. On examining the complainant’s private parts, the nurse found a number of scars indicating past penetration. At first the complainant refused to divulge the identity of the perpetrator and continued to cry. But after the nurse instructed the mother to leave the consulting room, the complainant told the nurse that the appellant had had sexual intercourse with her. [5] Following the examination by the nurse, the complainant was taken to the police and thereafter, for medical examination by a local doctor, Dr Gunaselva. The doctor also observed the scars on the complainant’s private parts and concluded that they were consistent with the history of ‘sexual assault with penetration’ which had been given to him. [6] In essence, the complainant’s evidence was that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her on a February morning after he had picked her up from the usual spot en route to collect the other children on their way to school. Whilst she was sitting on the front seat of the appellant’s van, the appellant asked to have sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter the appellant pulled her towards him. They alighted from the front and got into the back of the van where the appellant had sexual intercourse with her despite her refusal. During July 2006 the appellant came to her house and ask to have sexual intercourse with her, but she refused. [7] The appellant’s mother testified that her suspicions about the appellant’s behaviour started in about March 2006, when the appellant told her to stop paying