[49] What stands out clearly from the evidence, and as admitted by DW2, is that the Respondent was engaged in a seminar taking place outside her office throughout the material week. The only time DW2 saw her in person, is according to his evidence, when he sought her out in her office early one morning. Respondent had rushed out of the office because she was called to attend a meeting at Ludzidzini. What has most agitated my mind, is, why then did the Appellants not write her a letter or send her a questionnaire as is the norm with the media, to enable her respond to these issues? Why also did the Appellants not divulge the reason why they wanted to see the Respondent to her secretary, Happy, or in the text messages allegedly sent to her, considering the shocking and impactful nature of the information. This would have been appropriate in all the circumstances of this case, and would have, to my mind, elicited a reaction from the Respondent. [50] DW2’s explanation that he did not divulge the information to Happy in order to prevent a leakage to other media houses has no merits. It, in my view, shows the recklessness of the Appellants in failing to afford the Respondent the opportunity of a response before the publication. This is so because, by so alleging, the Appellants appear to be approbating and reprobating, due to the fact that they have alleged that the information about the Respondent’s paternity was already in the public domain. The poser, is, if the information was already in the public domain then why the need to conceal it? This question begs the answer. [51] Another aspect of this case which is disturbing, is that the whole attempt to get a reaction from the Respondent lasted for only one week before the Appellants rushed into publication of the story. There is no demonstrable 32