The court established that oral evidence can substantiate claims in defamation cases, negating the need for additional documentary proof.

[1] The appellant (plaintiff in the High Court) had commenced an action in libel against the respondent (defendant in the High Court) at the High Court at Kota Bharu, Kelantan based on three articles purportedly published by the respondent on his website/blog known as "www.papagomo.blogspot.com". After a full trial, the learned judge dismissed the appellant's action principally on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove the identity of the blogger "papagomo". The learned High Court Judge also held that the appellant has failed to prove that the impugned articles were defamatory of him and that the defendant has succeeded in his defences.

[2] The appellant now appeals to us against that dismissal of his action with costs of RM10,000.00 to the respondent.

[3] We heard the appeal on 15 January 2015. Having heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondent in person, we unanimously allowed the appeal with costs of RM20,000.00 to the appellant as costs here and below. We also ordered the deposit to be refunded. The reasons for our decision are as follows.

Background

[4] There was a website or blog known as "www.papagomo.blogspot. com"("the said blog") and it was purportedly owned and administered by the respondent. The appellant contended that the respondent had uploaded and published three articles onto the blog defamatory of the appellant. The three articles are:

(i) "Ratusan ribu wang rakyat lesap disamun Penasihat Sultan Kelantan" dated 29 April 2011;

(ii) "Eksklusif - Wang komisen RM700 ribu hasil kayu balak Kelantan milik siapa?" dated 16 November 2011; and

(iii) "Tuanku Sultan Kelantan sembunyikan rahsia besar penyelewengan Penasihatnya" dated 24 November 2011.

[5] At the material time, the appellant was (and still is) an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya. The appellant also sat as a member of the Kelantan Civil Service Commission and also a member of the Royal Council for the State of Kelantan (Ahli Majlis Perajaan Negeri Kelantan).

[6] Two main issues were canvassed before the High Court. The first issue is whether on a balance of probabilities the respondent is the owner of the said blog and the second issue is whether the three impugned articles were defamatory of the appellant.

Identity Of Papagomo

[7] This is the first issue. The learned High Court Judge held that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent is the owner of the said blog. The High Court rejected the oral evidence of the appellant's witnesses because the evidence is not supported by any documentary evidence.

[8] The learned High Court Judge found that SP1, the special officer to the appellant, had testified that there is no letter or certificate from any department to confirm that the respondent is the owner of the said blog. SP1 had made a police report but there is no evidence that SP1 had made any complaint or written report to the Communication and Multimedia Commission or had written any letter to the commission to find out the identity of the owner of the said blog.

[9] The learned High Court Judge also rejected the evidence by SP2 that the respondent did at one time admit to him that the respondent is "papagomo". SP2 is the second cousin of the respondent. However, the learned judge considered his evidence unacceptable because SP2 had admitted in his testimony that he did not know how to activate a computer to surf the said blog and that he only reads the said blog if someone else had switched it on to read the articles.

[10] SP3 was the owner of a blog known as "Prinsip Rakyat". His evidence is that he had met the respondent quite a few times at the conventions of bloggers and the respondent admitted to him that he is "papagomo". SP3 also said that h