In the preliminary issue before this court, two suits ie Civil Suit Nos S3–23–75–93 and S2–22–520–93 have been consolidated.

The claim in both suits is based on the alleged cause of action said to be founded on a speech by the first defendant on 12 August 1993 and on a publication in the Star newspaper on 14 August 1993.

The cause of action in Civil Suit No S2–22–520–93 is founded on publication in the issue of the Star newspaper dated 13 August 1993.

Focusing on the first preliminary issue raised by the first defendant, the question before this court is whether the words attributed to the first defendant and published by the second, third and fourth defendants as set out in the statement of claim, read in the light of the plaintiff's answers to the interrogatories or even otherwise, are capable of bearing the defamatory meaning as alleged in the plaintiff's statement of claim.

I have had the advantage of having heard counsel and reading the authorities cited in connection therewith.

The authorities are manifest in their approach that it is fundamental that the exact words as uttered (by the first defendant in this case) must be reproduced in the original language with a certified translation in the language of the court, in the absence of which the claim will fail.

The statement of claim appears to be bereft of certain basic requirements. Paragraph 7 (p 10 of the bundle of pleadings) alleges that the first defendant spoke at an anniversary dinner. What the first defendant said was subsequently converted into print. The quoted words of the report (not the actual speech of the first defendant) refer to what was allegedly said later. In short, the main part of para 7 bears no connection with what follows in the quotation.

The case of Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936] 1 KB 697 is succinct on the rule that pleadings of this nature must be clear and the particulars must bear out what is alleged in the main allegation which is the material allegation.

It behoves me to echo the principles as laid down in authorities such as Harris v Warre (1879) 4 CPD 125 and Workers' Party v Tay Boon Too [1975] 1 MLJ 47 that the importance of the actual words uttered in the pleadings has always been a recurrent reminder, since in a libel, the words used are the material facts and must therefore be set out in the statement of claim. It is not good to merely describe their substance, purpose or effect. The law requires the very words in the libel to be set out in the declaration in order that the court may judge whether they constitute a ground of action.

Thus in the circumstances of this present application I would be hard put to judge whether the words (as found in the statement of claim attributed to the first defendant) constitute a ground of action — since those words in the report and pleaded in the statement of claim are reported in the third person and are but the product of a journalist's creative skills and reporting only, even if it captures the essence of what the first defendant uttered. This is not sufficient since what is important is not the fact of the first defendant having used defamatory expression but the fact of his having used those defamatory expressions alleged, which is the fact on which the case depends.

In the light of the authorities such as Haris v Warre and Collins v Jones [1955] 2 All ER 145, it is necessary for the plaintiff to plead or allege verbatim the exact words which he complains of.

Secondly, it is appropriate at this stage to see whether the allegation that no proper accounts were kept and those collecting funds for public purpose should keep proper accounts and refund money collected when not needed is defamatory in their ordinary and natural meanings.

I am satisfied after having read the authorities such as Workers' Party v Tay Boon Too, The Straits Times Press(1975) Ltd v Workers' Party & Anor [1987] 1 MLJ 186 and Dr Jenni Ibrahim v S Pakianathan [1986] 2 MLJ 154 that there appears to be no conn