The court affirmed that defamatory statements must be capable of bearing a defamatory meaning and established the criteria for publication and damages in defamation cases.

JUDGMENT

Celestina Stuel Galid J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff appealed to this Court against the decision of the Sessions Court in dismissing his claim for defamation against the 1st and 2nd Defendants.

[2] On 18 September 2023, this Court allowed the appeal in part. The Plaintiff had indicated that he would be seeking leave to appeal against the said decision. No appeal was filed by either the 1st or 2nd Defendant.

[3] The parties shall be referred to herein as they were in the Court below.

Background

[4] The Plaintiff was the former father-in-law of the 1st Defendant who was previously married to his son (PW5). Their relationship was acrimonious to say the least. PW5 had sued the 1st Defendant and some of her family members earlier in the Johore Bahru Civil Suit No: JA-23NCvC-11-10/2019 ("the JB suit") arising from an incident where the 1st Defendant had allegedly damaged PW5's car.

[5] The Plaintiff pleaded that he had assisted PW5 to arrange for the service of the JB suit cause papers on the 1st Defendant and the other defendants in that suit by engaging and instructing two separate process servers to do so. However, both process servers were allegedly met with hostilities by the 1st Defendant and her family members.

[6] The Plaintiff claimed that subsequently he came across defamatory statements made by the 1st Defendant against the Plaintiff and his family members in the former's Facebook page under the name "Adeq Farhana" which statements the 2nd Defendant using the Facebook name "Najib Archibold A Rahman" had commented on. The Plaintiff pleaded that the 2nd Defendant's comment was also defamatory.

The Plaintiff's Complaints

[7] The 1st Defendant was alleged to have made the following statements in her Facebook page:

"Perbuatan keji bekas mertua saya setelah anak beliau telah disabitkan hukuman penjara kerana memukul saya seperti binatang, beliau telah mengupah gangster mengganggu keluarga saya.

Rumah ibu saya didatangi beberapa lelaki untuk menyerahkan satu dokumen. Lelaki pertama hadir pada 1 November 2019 pada jam lebih kurang 1020 pm.

Lelaki tersebut (tidak memperkenalkan diri) menyatakan ingin menyerahkan dokumen mahkamah johor bahru berkaitan satu writ saman kepada beberapa nama dan menyuruh kakak saya untuk tandatangani.

Kakak saya menolak untuk tidak tandatangani bila mana terasa was2 kepada perkara tersebut. Lelaki itu juga ada menyatakan mendapat upah rm400.00 daripada Hasnar B Hj Ebrahim (plaintif) penama dalam writ saman tersebut.

Kedua, pada 3 November 2019 jam lebih kurang 1230 pm hadir dua lelaki yang menyatakan pada mulanya mengaku sebagai anggota polis, kemudian memperkenalkan diri sebagai wakil dr mahkamah dan juga seakan memaksa abg saya tandatangan. Kalau dari mahkamah Johor hari ini mendapat cuti kemenangan bola JDT semalam.

Juga abg saya menolak atas arahan itu. Kakak saya ada mengambil gambar wajah dan no pendaftaran kenderaan m/car VBT 5774 jenis perodua axia warna perak."

[8] As for the 2nd Defendant, he was alleged to have posted the following in the comment section of the 1st Defendant's above post:

"Kiwakkk"

[9] The Plaintiff pleaded that the impugned statements by the 1st Defendant was published through her Facebook page which had "more or less several thousand members and or participants". He averred that the said statements were attributable to him due to the words "bekas mertua saya" and the name "Hasnar B Hj Ebrahim" and the fact that the 1st Defendant was previously married to the Plaintiff's son, PW5.

[10] The Plaintiff further pleaded that the impugned statements by the words and or innuendo in their nature and ordinary meaning, imputed the following:

"36.1 the Plaintiff is a gangster and a dangerous person to be associated with;

36.2 the Plaintiff is unethical businessman;

36.3 the Plaintiff is dishonest and not worthy of is standing and reputation;

36.4 the Plaintiff is generally guilty of unethical conduct;

36.5 the Plaintiff and members of his families are dishonest;

36.6 that the Plaintiff's fam