“[56] It was submitted by Mr Flynn that in the event the Court was to find the Defendants liable to the Plaintiff it should order that she be compensated through the payment of nominal damages considering that the allegations merely emphasized what was already known and secondly in view of the Plaintiff having allegedly claimed excessive damages. According to Mr Flynn, damages in defamation matters should not exceed E50,000.00 as he said was stated in The Times of Swaziland and Other vs Albert Heshange Shabangu Appeal Case No. 30/2006. Whatever the facts in the said matter, it cannot be true that it was setting a rule oparticularly where it is clear the publication was malicious and a result of the Defendants having taken sides in an existing dispute. Furtherstill I am convinced that cannot be the case where it becomes clear that the Defendants, because of their financial standing calculated the pros and cons of publishing the article based on what they considered to be extent of their risk. There should not be a doubt that the damages should be meaningful with the victims and potential victims being assured of their rights to dignity and reputation being protected as well. Certainly if this has not been the case, perhaps the time has come for the media to have greater responsibilities in their publication. [57] I do not agree, firstly that the matter of the Plaintiff allegedly being a Mahlangu, was already a matter in the public domain as alleged. In fact that is against the contents of the publication themselves where the Defendants stated that the contents of their publication or their revelation was going to shock the nation which had always known the Plaintiff to be a Simelane and further that their “revelation “ as they chose to call it was going to turn the fortunes of one of the iron ladies in Swaziland, in the Plaintiff, for the worst. Clearly all these paraphrases are not consistent with a matter that was already in the public domain. It shall be remembered that they also stated in a follow-up article that their revelation or publication had had the impact of forcing the Simelanes to bring about changes within their area as they removed Gelane from the Acting position. In fact this comment of theirs encapsuled the very purpose of the Defendant’s article. [58] The evidence of Mahlangu Simelane to the effect they had always known Gelane to be a Mahlangu as opposed to a Simelane, is not only improbable but is devoid of truth. It is unfathomable that if they, as the Simelane’s had always known her to be a Mahlangu they would have appointed her to act as a chief in the first place or put differently it is unfathomable they would not have brought that to the fore much sooner or after her having assumed the role of Acting Chief. In any event his evidence is contradictory in the 40