urgency that necessitated the rush into such a momentous publication. Neither has it been shown that the information was critical to the public to warrant such urgency. Prudence and good practice necessitated that in these circumstances, the Appellants should have afforded the Respondent a reasonable opportunity to respond, in view of the fact that she was engaged in a seminar during the penultimate week. In my view, they should have held off the publication until the following week to enable the Respondent return from her seminar to respond. Their failure to do this was unreasonable in the circumstances. [52] Furthermore, prudence and good investigative journalism, required that since the Appellants failed to get a response from the Respondent and also failed to interview any of the Dubes, that they at least took steps in other established directions, such as the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, to glean information on the statues of the Respondent’s birth. This would have been cogent and reliable information, in view of Mr Mahlangu’s precarious and improbable story. They failed to do this. It is not supprising therefore, that DW2 admitted under cross-examination that apart from Mr Mahlangu’s story, he had no other information supporting the allegation that the Respondent was his daughter prior to the publication. [53] It appears to me that the Appellants’ efforts to verify the story or obtain a reaction from the Respondent’s side, were perfunctory. They were simply going through the motions. Their conduct was not reasonable in any democratic society. 33