Zambia Limited v Simon Kapwepwe [5]. There the Supreme Court considered that K10,000 was a proper estimate of the compensatory damage caused by the publication made by the defendant in that action in a newspaper. A sum of K10,000 was also accepted by plaintiff in respect of publication of a similar libel in another newspaper. In the present case there is not the overlap caused by the broadcasts reaching the same persons who would read the newspaper. In the case of the television broadcasts this might be largely the same group. The radio broadcasts would, however, reach a far wider audience. If the amount of K10,000 awarded or received in respect of each of the two newspapers' publications is correct, I do not see how an estimated additional K10,000 compensatory damages, in respect of the publications in the present action, can be considered to be excessive. That, and what I have earlier said about offsetting exemplary damages, disposes of the two reasons given in the first ground of appeal. That first ground of appeal states that the damages were excessive, and that ground has been argued for reasons outside the two reasons set out. In my opinion an appeal against the quantum of damages is sufficient in itself and allows argument on any point that may go to show that the damages are excessive. I do not, as I have already said, consider that the compensatory damages were excessive. I now turn to the amount of the K20,000 exemplary damages awarded. It does not seem to me that there is any substantial material difference between the present defendant and Times Newspapers Limited, against whom K10,000 exemplary damages were awarded in another action. The only distinction between the two is that the news item was in fact supplied by another agency of the present appellant. Exemplary damages are given for the purpose of bringing home to a defendant the error of his ways. In the case of Government it is impossible reasonably to award a sum that