2. Whether or not the court a quo erred in awarding damages in the sum of E550,000-00 (Five Hundred and Fifty Thousand Emalangeni), to the Respondent. [14] A proper decision of these issues will entail an enquiry as to whether the court a quo committed a material misdirection in its decision, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. I will now consider the issues raised ad seriatim vis a vis the impugned judgment to gauge their efficacy. [15] ISSUE ONE: Whether or not the court a quo erred in finding the Appellants liable for defamation flowing from the article in question? [16] A proper answer to the foregoing question is best approached from a critical look at the article of 9 May 2009. This appears in these proceedings as annexure A. I have carefully considered the said article and I am convinced that Hlophe J comprehensively and accurately captured its essence (with slight adaptations by me) as follows in paragraphs [3] - [12] of the impugned judgment. “[3] The first page of the Swazi News of the 9th May 2009 bears the words, “ MR. MAHLANGU’S SCHOCKER” above the bold words “I AM GELANE’S FATHER” below which are written the following sentences:• • • This man tells us Gelane is a Mahlangu, not a Simelane as the nation knows. He also claims Gelane deserted him and does not care about him. Ludzidzini Committee has been told about this. 9