it is improper to go to a person’s homestead to conduct an interview, cannot avail the Appellants. This is because, DW2 by his own showing, sought to interview residents of Kontshingila at their homesteads prior to the publication. He told the court that he was finally able to gain entrance into the home of one resident, a police officer. The question is why not extend the same courtesy to the Dubes in order to ascertain the veracity of the scurrilous publication and balance out the story? They did not do this. [47] The further gambit which is that they believed Mr Mahlangu’s assertion that all the relevant Dubes were deceased, is also unsustainable. Mr Mahlangu made it clear, that though some of the Dubes were dead, the Respondent’s Uncle’s wife was in his belief, still alive and would know all the facts. The Appellants did not avail themselves of this window of opportunity to balance out the story. They proceeded with the publication, only to thereafter, on 18 October 2009, interview one Jane Dube who is Respondent’s Aunt by reason of being her mother’s sister. Jane Dube refuted Mr Mahlangu’s claims making it clear that the Respondent is a Simelane. The Appellants ought to have taken the steps to interview the Dubes as well as the Simelanes before the publication. The interview that was orchestrated subsequent to the publication, was to my mind, water under the bridge. The damage had already occasioned. [48] Then, there is the contention by the Appellants that they made several attempts to reach the Respondent on her cell phone but failed. DW2 also visited the Respondent’s office on three different occasions where he spoke to her secretary, one Happy. 31