public, does not make it of public interest. It was thus unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case. [59] It appears to me, and as correctly found by the court a quo, that the publication was motivated by malice. This is because, well knowing of the existing chieftaincy dispute in Kontshingila involving two factions, one led by the Respondent and the other led by DW3, Dr M.J. Simelane, the Appellants swayed heavily on the side of DW3. They sought information from that faction alone and shunned available opportunities to verify the information from the Respondent’s faction. The Appellants by their posture appeared to be on a mission to demean the Respondent leaving her hitherto high esteem and good name in tatters. The coupe de grace of this enterprise was the subsequent publication of 16 May 2009, which falsely acclaimed that Gelane had been dethroned from her position of Acting Chief of Kontshingila. The malice here is palpable. It cannot be gainsaid. [60] In light of the totality of the foregoing, there was no justification for the publication either on grounds of fairness, morality or public and legal policy. [61] QUANTUM OF DAMAGES ISSUE 2 Whether or not the court a quo erred in awarding damages in the sum of E550,000=00 (Five Hundred and Fifty Thousand Emalangeni) to the Respondent. [62] It is trite law that since the award of damages is a discretionary measure of the court of trial, an appellate court will be hesitant to interfere with the damages awarded, except in the face of material misdirection resulting in 36