[12] THE APPEAL The Appellants are dissatisfied with the judgment of the court a quo. They have approached this court for its intervention via a notice of appeal which embodies the following grounds of complaint. “1 The court a quo erred in law and fact in finding that the meaning ascribed to the words complained by the Defendant was not different to the one pleaded and accordingly not dismissing the Respondent’s action on that basis. 2. The court erred in that even if the court correctly found that the meaning ascribed to the words complained of by the Respondent were not different to the meaning pleaded, in not upholding the Appellants’ defence that the publication of the words concerned was not unlawful because the Appellants were not aware of the falsity of the articles and their publication was not made negligently or recklessly and such publication was made objectively, reasonably and without animus injuriandi. 3. The court erred in that even in the event it correctly found for the Respondent, which finding Appellant challenges on the basis set out above, the award of E550,000.00 was with all due respect excessive in all the circumstances of the matter and with due regard to all relevant precedents, the value of currency and other applicable considerations including but not limited to the effect that an award of this nature has on the flow of information to the public. 4. With regard to the ground of appeal above, the Honourable court erred in finding, that there was evidence that the Appellant took sides in the chieftaincy dispute and that the publication was made with malice.” [13] The grounds of appeal raise only two (2) issues for determination namely:1. Whether or not the court a quo erred in finding the Appellants liable for defamation flowing from the article in question. 8