case of Wright v British Railway Board (1983) AC 733 at pg 777C declared as follows:‘Non-economic loss is not susceptible of measurement in money. Any figure at which the assessor of damages arrives cannot be other than artificial and, if the aim is that justice meted out to all litigants should be even handed instead of depending on idiosyncrasies of the assessor, whether jury or Judge, the figure must be basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases.’ [82] It follows from the above that one of the parameters for a judicious award of damages in non-pecuniary loss cases is consideration of awards in comparable cases. It is imperative that I also observe here that since this matter turns on injury to the Plaintiff’s dignity, the Plaintiff’s social standing is of paramountcy in the award of appropriate damages. Also to be weighed in the equation is any lack of apology as well as the nature, extent and gravity of the violation of the Plaintiff’s dignity. See Ryan v Petros 2010 (1) SA 169 at 1774. The amount awarded must also be a conventional sum which would in the Swazi society be deemed to be reasonable. Each case must invariably be treated according to its own peculiar facts and circumstances.” [65] Furthermore, in the case of Lindifa Mamba and Another v Vusi Ginindza Civil Case No. 1354/2000, the High Court detailed the applicable factors in assessment of damages as follows:(a) Character, status and regard of Plaintiff. (b) Nature and extent of publication. (c) Nature of imputation (serious or not). (d) Probable consequences of imputation. (e) Partial justification. (f) Retraction or apology and (g) Comparable awards and declining value of money. 38