Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2861
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
DR ZAKIR ABDUL KARIM NAIK – Appellant
Versus
RAMASAMY PALANISAMY & ANOTHER CASE – Respondent
[Civil Suit Nos: WA-23CY-53-10-2019 & WA-23CY-70-12-2019]
Defamatory statements made with malice and without truth are actionable under the Defamation Act, with the plaintiff entitled to damages and injunctive relief.
Headnote:(A) Defamation Act 1957 – Defamation – Five separate defamatory publications made by the defendant against the plaintiff over a period of three and a half years – The court found that the defendant failed to establish any defenses of justification, fair comment, or qualified privilege – The plaintiff was awarded RM1,520,000.00 in damages, including general, compensatory, aggravated, and exemplary damages, along with costs and injunctive relief. (Paras 3.2, 20.1, 21.2)
Facts of the case: The plaintiff, a renowned speaker, claimed that the defendant, a high-ranking government official, published defamatory statements that maliciously harmed his reputation and credibility. The statements were made on social media and news platforms, leading to public ridicule and contempt. (Paras 1.1, 5.1, 20.1)
Findings of Court: The court found that the defendant's publications were defamatory, lacked truth, and were made with malice. The plaintiff's reputation was severely impacted by the defendant's actions. (Paras 20.1, 21.2)
Issues: The main issues included whether the defendant's statements were defamatory, whether they referred to the plaintiff, and whether the defendant could establish any defenses. (Paras 20.1, 21.2)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendant's statements were defamatory, and the defenses of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege were not applicable due to the presence of malice and lack of truth. (Paras 20.1, 21.2)
Result: The court entered final judgment for the plaintiff, awarding damages and injunctive relief against the defendant. (Paras 21.1, 21.2)
JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 1)
Introduction
[1] In a nutshell:
1.1 There are two suits involving similar parties with similar issues:
(a) Suit WA-23CY-53-10/2019, (Suit 53), and
(b) Suit WA-23CY-70-12/2019, (Suit 70).
(c) Both suits are by Dr Zakir Naik against Ramasamy. Both cases are grounded on alleged acts of defamation committed by the latter against the former on four (4) separate libellous and one (1) slanderous occasion.
1.2 Dr Zakir Abdul Karim Naik (Dr Zakir), the plaintiff, is a permanent resident of Malaysia.
1.3 The defendant, Ramasamy Palaniasamy (Ramasamy), was the Deputy Chief Minister II of Penang at the time of the alleged tortuous offences.
[2] In Suit 53, Dr Zakir claimed Ramasamy had maliciously libelled him on three (3) separate occasions (10 April 2016, 1 October 2017, 9 August 2019), while on 20 August 2019, maliciously slandered him in an online interview on India Today:
2.1 Dr Zakir contended that the four defamatory publications were unsupported, were published with malice, hatred, envy, and spite, had disparaged, and ridiculed him to the general public, and as a result, has caused him losses and damage.
2.2 In Suit 70, Dr Zakir claimed Ramasamy had maliciously libelled him by publishing defamatory materials on 8 November 2019. Dr Zakir took the legal position that the publications, in their natural and ordinary meaning, are defamatory of him that had been published and republished.
2.3 Ramasamy, in denying the two foregoing suits, argued:
(a) For Suit 53:
(i) The defence of justification and fair comment applies to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defamatory publications, and
(ii) In the alternative, claimed qualified privilege as it was raised for public concern and interest.
(b) For Suit 70:
(i) The defence of justification and fair comment applies to the defamatory publication, and
(ii) In the alternative, claimed qualified privilege as it was raised for public concern and interest.
[3] On 2 November 2023:
3.1 After hearing parties with their respective arguments, all things considered, this Court find Dr Zakir has succeeded in proving his case on the balance of probabilities; therefore, this Court finds in favour of Dr Zakir and allowed Suit 53 and Suit 70 against Ramasamy.
3.2 Ramasamy was ordered to pay cumulatively RM1,520,00.00 comprising:
(i) RM1 million in general damages for the five defamatory publications.
(ii) RM100,000.00 compensatory damages for the five defamatory publications.
(iii) RM100,000.00 aggravated damages for the five defamatory publications.
(iv) RM250,000.00 exemplary damages for the five defamatory publications.
(v) RM70,000.00 in global costs payable within thirty (30) days from the Order.
3.3 Aggrieved, Ramasamy filed this appeal against my decision in Suit 53 and Suit 70. Since these two suits were heard together, dealing with similar facts, I will prepare a single written grounds of judgment to avoid duplicity. My reasons are as follows:
[4] The witnesses at the trial are:
(a) Plaintiff:
PW1: Dr Zakir Naik Abdul Karim Naik
(b) Defendant:
DW1: P Ramasamy Palanisamy
4.1 Parties agreed in Court (23 August 2022) to only call PW1 and DW1 as witnesses to offer evidence at the trial of Suit 53 and Suit 70.
4.2 Parties also agreed that for Suit 53 and Suit 70, all Part C documents would be taken as Part B documents.
4.3 Ramasamy does not dispute the publication of the five alleged defamatory publications.
Brief Facts
[5] In a nutshell, Suit 53 and Suit 70 are grounded on five defamatory publications by Ramasamy against Dr Zakir over a period of three and half years (10 April 2016-8 November 2019). It is claimed that Ramasamy, on these five separate occasions, maliciously published offending materials that are defamatory of Dr Zakir, as follows:
5.1 First Defamatory Publication:
(a) Ramasamy called Dr Zakir a satan in his Facebook post on 10 April 2016. The full text of that post in a nutshell says:
"Let us get "Satan" Zakir Naik out of this country!
The "Satan" Zakir Naik is in the country as a result of t
