be said to have erred on the side of the opposing Simelane faction as the court a quo held; the Appellants did not act with malice; the Appellants subsequently published a rejoinder from the Respondent’s Aunt Jane Dube. In light of these factors, Adv. Flynn prayed the court to set aside the award of E550,000 and substitute it with a lesser award. [69] The contention that the damages awarded is dispproportionate to the prejudice suffered by the Respondent and it should accordingly be reduced and to what extent, cannot lie. This is so because, it is patently obvious to me that the court a quo considered the issues urged by Adv. Flynn, within the context of the guiding principles in its process of the award of damages. If the court a quo did not give reasons for the award or the award is not supported by the evidence, then this court will have the power to interfere with the award. This is however not such a case. The trial court gave copious reasons for the award, which reasons are supported by the evidence on record. This court therefore lacks the power to interfere with the award. [70] There is however, a thorny part of this case which I find the need to comment on for the purposes of emphasis. This is the contention that the award is excessive on the basis that the highest award granted in Swaziland for this sort of damages, is the sum of E100,000 in the Akker case. [71] If this argument is well understood by me, it means that since the alleged highest award was E100,000, the court a quo was not at liberty to exceed this amount, therefore, the exercise of its discretion in awarding the sum of E550,000 to the Respondent, was erroneous. Put differently, it means that the sum of E100,000 is forever a benchmark for the award of damages, and 44