JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.
The plaintiff - respondent (hereinafter called the respondent) claimed from the defendants - appellants (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) the following as appears in her writ of summons: "N¢200.00 damages from the defendants jointly and severally for defamation of character and insults as follows:
On Tuesday 28 March 1967 at 4 p.m. the first defendant told the plaintiff that plaintiff had become proud because of legacy. She further told the plaintiff that plaintiff is a slave. The plaintiff's room is dirty and when her father died it was the defendant who took water and washed the room.
Second defendant: The defendant shouted and beat a bucket saying that the plaintiff does not know that she is a slave because she is young."
At the trial it was established and accepted by the court that on the day in question a quarrel developed between the appellants and the respondent during which the words complained of were uttered by the appellants. It is not necessary therefore to go into any great details as to the evidence. It is sufficient to draw attention to two relevant pieces of evidence. The respondent in her evidence-in-chief said of the first appellant, "She developed an argument between me and her during which she said that I was a slave." The first witness for the appellants said, "I was returning from the market when I saw the plaintiff and the two defendants quarrelling." In his judgment the magistrate said of this statement of the appellants' witness, "This is a true statement which the court has no reason to disbelieve." However the district court magistrate, although he held that there was a quarrel, seemed to have taken the view that it was a quarrel in which the appellants insulted and defamed the respondent but that the respondent did not in any way insult the appellants. Having held that there was a quarrel the court concluded:
"The court does not at all believe the evidence of the first and second defendants and their witnesses that they did not insult the plaintiff or that the plaintiff also insulted the first defendant. Why should they choose to go to the plaintiff's house carrying an old bucket to beat to attract people? This they could not do but their intention is quite obvious. The court therefore finds the first and second defendants guilty for insulting and defaming the plaintiff without just cause. The plaintiff is awarded special damages N¢80.00 against the first and second defendants jointly and se
