JUDGMENT I. APPEAL

This is an appeal by the appellant/defendant ("the defendant") against the decision of the learned magistrate who on 6 August 2001 and 14 August 2001 found the defendant liable in libel against the plaintiff and awarded to the plaintiff a sum of

2

RM8,000.00 as damages, and a further sum of RM1,000.00 as exemplary damages.

II. FACTS OF THE CASE

In June 1996, the defendant appointed the plaintiff to carry out demolition and construction works in the plaintiffs house in Bukit Duyong,

Melaka.

On 7 August 1996, the defendant was informed by his wife that some money and jewellery in the house were found to be missing. On the same date, the defendant lodged Kandang, Melaka police report No. 847/96 which reads as follows :

"Pada 6/8/96 jam lebih kurang1000hrs pagi masa itu saya ada letakan beg duit yang berisi wang RM4470.00, gelang emas tiga urat dan satu gelang emas didalam bilek dirumah saya. Pada 6/8/96 jam lebeh kurang 1200 tengahari datang tiga orang pekerja untuk memasang pintu dan salah saorang dikenali namanya Zainal. Pada jam 7.30 petang pada hari yang sama saya lihat tiga pekerja tersebut berkerja dalam keadaan tergesa gesa dan mencurigakan, saya tidak mengesaki apa apa pada masa itu dan salepas itu pekerja tersebut balek dan

3

meninggalkan pintu bahagian belakang tanpa dipasang.

Pada 7/8/96 jam lebih kurang 1000 pagi saya diberitahu oleh isteri saya bahawa wang dan barang kemas yang disimpan didalam bilek telah hilang ada kesan kena pecah dan bilek tidak diselongkar. Saya shak hati perkara ini dilakukan salah saorang tiga pekerja yang mengambilnya. Kerugian lebeh kurang 7500.00. Inilah repot saya."

[My translation :

On 6.8.96 at about 1000 hours I placed a bag with money amounting to RM4,470.00, three pieces of gold bangles and another piece of bangle in a room of my house. On 6.8.96 at about 1200 hours three workers came to install a gate and one of them was known to me as Zainal. At about 7.30p.m. on the same day I saw the three workers working in a hurry and suspiciously, I did not suspect anything at that time and subsequently the workers went home, without installing the gate.

On 7.8.96 at about 1000 hours I was told by my wife that the money and jewellery placed

4

in the room were missing, as there were traces of the room being broken into and not rummaged. I suspected it to be the work of one of the three workers who took them away. The loss to me is about 7,500.00. This is my report. ]

The plaintiff sued the defendant in the court below for libel on the basis of the said police report. Evidence was adduced by the plaintiff and the defendant respectively and no other witness was called.

SUBMISSION BY COUNSEL AND DECISION OF THE COURT

The plaintiff was legally represented in the court below, but his counsel has since discharged himself in the appeal before me.

5

The defendant through learned counsel Cik P. Vanaja Dewi submitted that the plaintiff's statement of claim has failed to comply with the drafting requirements in pleading libel to establish the tort of libel against the defendant, and that the learned magistrate has erred in law in holding that the defence of qualified privilege did not apply.

1. Plaintiff's Statement of Claim

The tort of defamation i.e. libel and slander requires a special treatment in so far as the drafting of the pleading is concerned, in particular the plaintiffs statement of claim. A classic illustration has been set out by Bullen & Leake & Jacobs's Precedents of Pleadings, at page 623 as follows :

"(b) Pleading the statement of Claim

Libel - pleading publication - words to be set out. The words must be set out verbatim in the statement of claim. It is not enough to set out their substance or effect (Harris v.

6

Warre (1879) 4 C.P.D. 125 at 127; Collins v. Jones (1955) 1 Q.B. 564). Where the defamatory words form only part of a longer article or programme, the plaintiff must set out in his statement of claim only the particular passages of which he complains as being