8. Ad paragraph 10 The contents herein are denied, and Defendant avers. 8.1 Defendant disputes that the Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amounts claimed or at all. 8.2 Defendant further states that the amount claimed by Plaintiff is excessive. 8.3 Defendants deny that they are obliged to pay the Applicant (sic) the amount claimed or any at all.” (emphasis added) [19] It is patently obvious to me that while the Appellants denied that the context of the article are wrongful and defamatory of the Respondent, they however failed to deny the allegation that the words in the context of the article “were intended and were understood by the readers of the newspaper to mean that Plaintiff was an imposter who had usurped the chieftaincy of Kontshingila when she is not entitled to so act by virtue of the fact that she is not a Simelane.” [20] The legal position in these circumstances, is that the Appellants are bound by their plea and must be taken to have admitted this portion of the Respondent’s pleading. This derogates the necessity of leading any further evidence in proof of it. [21] Adumbrating on this trite principle of law in my decision in The Swaziland Government v Aaron Ngomane (Supra) paragraphs [27] and [32] (Ramodibedi CJ and Maphalala JA concurring) I stated as follows:“[27] Since this issue turns on the general principle that parties are bound by their pleadings, it is important that we detail the functions of pleadings in this regard which are two dimensional. This is to 13