or agreed and considered what further amount was required to erect further compensation to the plaintiff. Although I myself might have arrived at a different figure from a total of K30,000 as compensation, I cannot say that the calculation of that sum is wrong in principal and, in finding this, I have taken into account the provisions of section 12 (2) of the Defamation Act, which allows a defendant to put forward in mitigation the argument that the plaintiff had brought actions for damages in respect of the same defamatory words or has agreed to receive compensation therefore. In fact, no evidence was led on behalf of the appellant to substantiate such mitigation. The learned trial judge did not in his judgment take into account the possibility of the continuation of an action against the original perpetrator of the libel, Mr Liyoka. With regard to Mr Liyoka, although he was referred to in part of the evidence of the plaintiff, there is no indication that the plaintiff would continue an action against Mr Liyoka having regard to the fact that he is an impecunious ex-university student and, as the learned Chief Justice has said, the learned trial judge probably did not consider that any material amount of damages could be recovered from him. I note that in his judgment, the learned trial judge, having referred to radio, television and newspaper reports, went on to say: "I have decided that the total compensatory sum should be fixed at K30,000 for the dissemination of this libel throughout Zambia by the media concerned."