The court found that the prosecution witnesses were consistent and corroborative, and their testimony was supported by the presence of Pw4, who witnessed the promises and exchange of money. The appellant's denial was not credible in light of the evidence, and the defence was rightly rejected. The lack of documentary evidence did not undermine the prosecution case, as the oral testimony was sufficient and credible. The appellant's previous conviction was relevant to sentencing, and the sentence imposed was not harsh. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.