attributed to the words used only by the hearing having knowledge of special circumstances.” (emphasis added) [27] The foregoing on the applicable test of a reasonable person, is buttressed by the pronouncement of the court in Sankie Mthembu - Mahanyele v Mail and Guardian and Another (Supra), where the court stated as follows:“[26] One must have regard also, however, to what the ordinary reader of a particular publication would understand from the words complained of. A clear statement of this principle is to be found in Channing v South African Financial Gazette Ltd a passage relied on by Joffe J in the court below. In Channing, Colam J said, with reference to the locus Classicus in point, Johnson v Rand Daily Mails Ltd. ‘From these and other authorities it emerges that the ordinary reader is a “reasonable” “right – thinking” person of average education and normal intelligence; he is not a man of “morbid and suspicious mind” / nor is he “super-critical “ or abnormally sensitive, and he must be assumed to have read the articles as articles in newspapers are usually read. For that assumption authority is to be found in Basner v Trigger 1945 – AD 22 at pp 35 – 6--- But this , I think is clear one may not impute to him for the purposes of this inquiry, the training or the habits of mind of a lawyer.’” [28] It is beyond contradiction, that the foregoing article was intended to impress in the mind of the ordinary reasonable and intelligent man on the streets of Swaziland, that the Respondent fully knowing that she is not a Simelane but a Mahlangu, falsely concealed her true identity, and deceived the whole Kingdom that she is a Simelane, in furtherance of her ambition and political gains of becoming and retaining the position of Acting Chief of Kontshingila, which is in fact not her birthright. This is so when judged against the background fact that (1) Respondent’s position as Acting Chief stems from her birthright as a Simelane, (a fact which is well known in Swaziland), (2) yet the foregoing article proclaimed that the Respondent is 17