later, he testified that they got to hear about her not being a Simelane at a meeting with the Regional Administrator and later that they learnt of it in a meeting with the Ludzidzini Governor, the late Jim Gama and later that they had always known about her being a Mahlangu as she arrived at Kontshingila with her mother. It is a fact that they only started looking for Mr. Mahlangu from the meeting with Jim Gama which was only attended by the Simelane’s, which is indicative that if it ever was made, it would have been on that day. In any event, Mr Malangeni Simelane’s evidence is exposed of being untruthful by his admission under cross-examination that sometime back and during the Plaintiff’s youthful years she had umcwasho rites being conferred on her as an Inkhosatana, (Senior chief’s daughter of the Simelane) (sic). This would not have been done if she was known not to be a Simelane as Malangeni Simelane now wants this Court to believe. [59] I furthermore cannot agree that the damages claimed are excessive when considering the nature extent and tone of the allegations including the deliberateness involved and insistence to publish it on the part of the Defendants. I agree with the Plaintiff that the publication concerned brought about greater unrest in the area. In fact recent events in the area as published in the media are indicative of this. [60] Clearly the general rule stated in the African Echo (Pty) LTD and Others vs Albert Heshange Shabangu Case was by no means a rule to Thumb to say that at all times Plaintiff’s in defamation matters would or should be paid nominal damages despite the circumstances of the matter at hand. It has been stated that where a Defendant in a defamation case makes an attack without verifying his facts and is not prepared or able to justify them he should incur liability for substantial damages. I therefore do not agree that even where there is malice in a given case, the Defendant in a given case should have his damages confined to E50 000.00 as was stated by Mr Flynn to find otherwise would suggest that the right of the media to publish material, even defamatory ones about members of the public should run superior to all the other constitutionally safeguarded rights like the one to individual dignity enshrined in the Constitution which is not and cannot be the case in our law. [61] I agree and subscribe to the principle that where malice is found to be in existence the damages have to be reflectively high. I have found that in the present matter the Defendants deliberately failed to investigate the propriety of their allegations when considering 41