entitled to recover contribution under this section from any person entitled to be indemnified by him in respect of the liability in respect of which the contribution is sought. This section envisages different actions against joint tortfeasors. The provisions are clear. The plaintiff may sue a number of joint tortfeasors in succession and may get judgment against them. The sums which can be recovered on such judgments cannot, however, exceed the sum awarded in the first of such actions. Furthermore, in respect of the actions after the first the plaintiff puts himself at risk for his costs. They cannot be given to him unless the court is satisfied that there was reasonable ground for bringing the actions. The section also provides for contribution from joint tortleasors. It is apparent, therefore, that there is no obligation upon a plaintiff to sue more than one tortfeasor. He is at liberty to select, if he wishes, one defendant whom he considers good for the total amount of damages which may be awarded. It is entirely a matter for that defendant to recover contributions made from any other persons who may jointly have been guilty of the tort. The court must, however, in the first action, give the full amount of any damage actually suffered from the tort. Upon the basis that Liyoka, Times Newspapers (Zambia) Limited and Zambia Publishing Co. Ltd were separate tortfeasors of substantially similar defamatory statements to those made by the appellants, it seems to me the obligation on the plaintiff is no different. If one is not required to sue all tortfeasors, it seems to me, a fortiori, that one cannot be required to sue all separate tortfeasors. Section 15 of the Defamation Act does not require a plaintiff so to do. It is solely procedural where there are in fact several actions brought.