50 absconded, there was compliance with the traditional practices of his custom as he understood it. [87] The appellant also referred to the customary practice that a female would not explicitly consent to the removal by the man when conducting the ukuthwala and would pretend to resist as a sign of her modesty17. In this regard both Nhlapo and Inkosi Mahlangu confirmed such conduct on the part of a consenting female in the “abduction” (our underlining). The appellant contended that this created an ambiguity about consent; and with reference to the evidence claimed that when the complainant ran away on the two occasions (which he admitted), the first in the Eastern Cape and the second in Philippi, it was no more than in accordance with such long standing and recognised practice. [88] In respect of the incident in the Eastern Cape, he claimed that she had said to him that she had only wanted to visit her family, but was afraid that he and his family would not have allowed her to do so. The trial court found, and correctly in our view, that the running away by the complainant could not on the evidence have been an indication of any pretence on her part. If anything, the evidence with regard to her running away in the Eastern Cape, walking through a forest at night, alone, sleeping in the open and exposed to the elements was nothing more than a desperate attempt on her part at 17 Appellant’s Heads of Argument para 21-23 page 588