Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC:

[1] This is my judgment in respect of the defamation suit which the parties have agreed to settle by an application under O. 14A of RHC 1980. The plaintiff's application seek the following orders:

(1) whether the two letters both dated the 24-02-1998 and signed by the defendants as Chairman of the Chiang Chuan Association addressed to the plaintiff and copied to the Registrar of Societies, Kuching, YB. Soon Choon Teck, Sibu who was the advisor of the Association and a Council Negeri Member and a Deputy Minister and Messrs. Tiong, Lim & Wong Advocates, Sibu a firm of Solicitor and Advocates in Sibu, Sarikei and Kuching referred in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim herein is capable of bearing the meanings or such of the meanings claimed by the plaintiff in paragraph 5 of the Statement of claim?;

(2) whether publication of the two letters referred in paragraph 3 of the statement of claim were made on privileged occasion on matter of common interest which the defendant as chairman of Chiang Chuan Association has a duty, either legal, social or moral to make and the plaintiff in his respective capacity as retired chairman and member of Chiang Chuan Association a reciprocal interest to receive them pleaded in the paragraph 23(c) of the Defence and Counterclaim?;

(3) whether in law there is such privilege for communication made in the reasonable and ordinary course of business on an occasion subsidiary to the occasion referred to in paragraph 23(h) of the defence and counterclaim namely justification plea;

[2] The grounds of the application are:

(1) that whether the publication of the two letters are capable of bearing the defamatory meanings as claimed by the plaintiff, and says this is a question of law for the judge and can appropriately be dealt with under O. 14A and O. 33;

(2) that the questions in para. A(2) to (5) are also questions of law for the judge which can appropriately be dealt with under O. 14A and O. 33; and

(3) that defence discloses no reasonable defences and is frivolous or vexatious or are an abuse of the process of the court.

[3] The two offending letters complained reads as follows:

First letter

Re: Lot 2454 Sibu Town District. The above refers.

(1) We had continually demanded for return of the original title deed of the land but to no avail. Our search at the Land & Survey Department reveals that the land was surprisingly caveated by Public Bank Berhad on 9 October, 1991 by virtue of a Memorandum of Charge dated 7 October, 1991 for a loan of RM600,000. The memorandum of charge was signed and executed by you and 2 others as the then Trustees of the Association.

(2) Our perusal of the Association's minute books at the relevant time does not reveal any CONSENT or AUTHORITY of the General Meeting or Association empowering you and the other Trustees to charge the Association's land to Public Bank Berhad for the purpose of borrowing RM600,000. Rule 23(b) of the Rules and constitution of the Association clearly states:

The Trustee shall not sell, charge borrow withdraw or transfer any of the property of the Association without the consent and authority of the General meeting of members.

And Rule 23(d) further states:

any dealing with the immovable properties belonging to the association shall be decided by three forths of the total voting membership of the Association.

(3) It is with regret that you as the then Chairman and one of the Trustees of the Association had blatantly (sic) disregarded the above Rules in charging the land to Public Bank Berhad to secure a loan of RM600,000 of the benefit of CHIANG CHUAN BERHAD. All the trust bestowed on you by the Association had been betrayed by your act.

(4) If no acceptable explanation as to the whereabout of the title deed and above matter is not (sic) received by us within 7 days from the date of this letter we may consider further action on the matter.

Second letter

Re: Lot 2454 Sibu Town District

Your letter dated 11 December 1