In defamation claims, mere hearsay evidence and failure to prove authorship or intent among defendants are insufficient to establish liability.

Wilayah Persekutuan

Tingkat O-4, Rumah Persekutuan

Jalan Sultan Hlshamuddin 50678

Kuala Lumpur

FAO: En Mohd Izwan Nuzalhan Bin Jamil

Re: Falsifying Of Signature In Petition Submitted By Mr MK Sabaratnam

I refer to the above matter.

I was notified by the Management Corporation of OG Heights Condominium that I was one of the owners who requested for the convening of an Emergency General Meeting (EGM) by way of a signed petition submitted to your office by one Mr MK Sabaratnam.

I would like to notify your office that I did not request for such an EGM and that my signature was used without my consent. The signature in the petition was forged by some unscrupulous person(s) to perpetrate their hidden agenda and I would not want to be part of it.

I would like you to take necessary action against person(s) involved in falsifying my signature.

I will also conduct my own investigation to identify the culprit(s) who are responsible for forging my signature and using my name as one of the owner of OG Heights Condominium in the petition.

Please take note that the person(s) involved in this despicable act should be punished. I will consult my solicitor for my next course of action.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Illegible

___________

Fu Chin

c.c. OG Heights Management Corporation please publish this letter in the general notice board so that the other owners and residents in OG Heights are aware of such person(s) forging owners' signatures and using owners' addresses without their permission."

Findings Of The Court

The Evidence

[23] The plaintiff testified that the letter complained had defamatory imputations which referred or reflected on him. The plaintiff further testified that there was likelihood of a conspiracy engineered by the third and fourth defendants as a result of the plaintiff's dissatisfaction over the issue of proxy voting namely that the third and fourth defendants were holding numerous proxies during voting in the annual general meetings of the residents of OG Heights.

[24] The plaintiff relied heavily on the testimony of PW2 who was also the fifth defendant named in the action. PW2 had testified that the contents of the said letter was unfounded and untrue and repeatedly claimed that the said letter was not prepared by her instead it was given to her by the third and fourth defendants. PW2 testified that the letter that was prepared by the third and fourth defendants was put in the letter box presumably by the third and fourth defendants for her to sign and send to the department. PW2 had also forwarded a letter of apology dated 8th January 2005 (ID13 (p 33 of Bundle "B")) and a statutory declaration dated 16th March 2007 (exh P14 (p 36 of Bundle "B")) the contents of which were contradictory to the letter complained of.

[25] Despite what was told to the Court in her examination in chief, during cross-examination PW2 testified that she had never met and/or discussed with the third and fourth defendants on how the said letter was to be prepared. In fact it was her husband (PW6) who had spoken to the third and fourth defendants and the draft of the letter complained was prepared by the third and fourth defendants and subsequently placed into her letter box. However PW2 could not tell who was/were the person or persons responsible for placing the letter complained of into her letter box. PW2 had no personal knowledge and/or any direct communication with the third and fourth defendants. In her examination in chief, PW2 confirmed that the signature on the letter complained of was her signature. PW2 had also admitted that she had signed the petition that was given to her by PW3 and PW4 at the time PW3 and PW4 came to her condominium unit with the petition to be submitted to the department to request for the convening of an eme