the court can only exercise its discretion to award damages of E100,000 and below, in all cases. [72] It seems to me that the fallacy of this argument lies on different fronts which I detail hereunder. [73] Firstly, I know of no rule or principle of our law under which the discretionary power of the court to award damages, can be so fettered. The suggestion that the discretion of the court a quo must be approximated to the amount of E100,000 divests such a discretionary power of its judicial and judicious efficacy, based on all the peculiar facts and circumstances. Such a process, with respect, will amount to an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion without any rational basis. It will be wrong in principle. See the Government of Swaziland v Aaron Ngomane (Supra) paragraph [88]. [74] Secondly, the proposition loses sight of the fact that Mr. Akker was a Deputy Sheriff. His status in the society as such, was of far less prominence than that of the Respondent, the Senate President and Acting Chief of Kontshingila. She is not just a local figure but an international personality. The egregiousness of the degradation is incomparable regard being had to the fact that the newspaper circulates around the globe in the cyberspace. On the surface it extends beyond the boarders of Swaziland to other nations. Not losing sight also of the fact that the defamation in Akker was less acrimonious and the decision was given in 2009, about five (5) years ago. The court a quo correctly considered these factors in its judgment. 45