[34] It is imperative that I point out at this juncture, that the Bogoshi decision, just like all other decisions of South African courts, are merely of persuasive authority in the Kingdom. They are not binding on our courts. It needs also be emphasized that the Bogoshi decision was based on the uniquely liberal Constitution of South Africa, which exhibits some marked difference with our Constitution and should be approached with trepidation. The foregoing notwithstanding, since the reasonableness concept of the Bogoshi phenomenon, which commends itself to me, was relied upon by the court a quo, I am compelled to consider it in that regard. [35] What then is the test for reasonableness within the context of this case?. [36] In the case of Lange v TB Atkinson and Another (New Zealand) (1990) UKPC 46, Brennan CJ articulated the guiding principles as follows:“Whether the making of a publication was reasonable must depend upon all the circumstances of the case. But, as a general rule, a defendant’s conduct in publishing material giving rise to a defamatory imputation will not be reasonable unless the defendant had reasonable grounds for believing that the imputation was true, took proper steps, so far as they were reasonably open, to verify the accuracy of the material and did not believe the imputation to be untrue. Furthermore, the defendant’s conduct will not be reasonable unless the defendant has sought a response from the person defamed and published the response made (if any) except in cases where the seeking or publication of a response was not practicable or it was unnecessary to give the plaintiff an opportunity to respond.”(emphasis added) [37] Similarly, in Bogoshi, pg 1211 F-H, the court held that the defendant bears the onus of proving reasonableness. In the inquiry as to the reasonableness of the publication, account must be taken of the following factors:(a) whether there was no unnecessary sting attached. (b) the nature of the information published. 22