inflation and devaluation of the currency of Swaziland in the intervening period. [78] The proposition also loses sight of the fact of the dynamics and progression of the law. The law is not static. Therefore, if Judges did not do what has never been done before, when the facts and circumstances justify same, as in the case instant, then the law will remain static while the rest of the world goes by. That will be dangerous for both. I am compelled to recap the words of the court a quo in this regard in paragraph [56] of the assailed judgment, as follows:“----- There should not be a doubt that damages should be meaningful with the victims and potential victims being assured of their rights of 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 responsibility in their publication.” [79] Finally, there has been no apology from the Appellants even in the face of the untruthfulness and unreasonableness of the publication. Rather, they have maintained an intransigent and reprehensible conduct in their pursuit of some spurious and unfounded defence. By so doing, they attempt to defend the indefensible. The lack of justification of the publication coupled with the lack of apology from the Appellants, should command a condign award of damages. [80] In the final analysis, it has not been shown that the court a quo improperly exercised its discretion in arriving at the award. This court lacks the power to interfer. 47