embarrass the Plaintiff if one considers the uncertainly expressed by Mr. Mahlangu in Court. [46] It was established in evidence that in terms of Swazi Law and Custom, certain rituals consistent with the Simelanes, were performed on the Plaintiff after her birth by the same Simelanes who went on to pay lobola for her mother which also included the necessary fines. Otherwise, Mr Mahlangu does not even know if on his part the customary fines were paid vis a vis the Plaintiff including whether the customary rituals were performed at her birth. He contented himself with saying he left all that to his sister which is improbable. The sister in question was not called as a witness. Mr Mahlangu’s version is therefore improbable when considering that he had always had all the access to Gelane’s half brother David, born of his relationship with Dorah Dube, Gelane’s mother, begging the question what would have stopped him from having such access to Gelane for over fifty years if he was her father. [47] The Defendants had not bothered ascertaining from the Dube’s who were there as to the accuracy of Mr. Mahlangu’s allegation which was an available avenue consistent with Swazi culture that more about such children as they alleged Plaintiff was, could be found from their material side. They also had not ascertained from or confronted Gelane herself about the information. In deed it was stated in the above cited excerpt from the Bogoshi case that it can never be reasonable to publish defamatory material about a person if that person had not been confronted with those allegations for his / her side to be published as well. I cannot say that the attempts allegedly taken by Mabandla Bhembe before publishing the story were reasonable. He in his own words had not divulged to the Plaintiff through any form of information why he wanted her. He had, he said, failed to meet her on two occasions including failing to reach her over her cellphone. He had not even prepared any questionnaire for her to comment at least after having noted she could not be reached. I have therefore come to the conclusion that the allegations in questions have no scintilla of truth in them and only made to be sensational whilst embarrassing the Plaintiff in the process and I have no hesitation that they are indicative of malice on the Defendants part. [49] It became clear during the trial of the matter that there was no truth in the contentions made forming the gravamen of this action. There was shown to be for instance, no truth in the contention that the Plaintiff was a dishonest person who deliberately concealed her true identity just as there was none in the contention 26