KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here has set aside its previous order that instructed activist Badrul Hisham Shaharin or Chegubard, and an influencer, to pay RM550,000 in damages to businessman Datuk Seri Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak over alleged defamation against the latter.
Justice Arziah Mohamed Apandi made the ruling after allowing an application by Badrul Hisham and Nurpais Ismail, who sought to quash the earlier order on the grounds that they had no knowledge of the proceedings against them.
In her decision, Justice Arziah said the service of the writ of summons against the defendants were defective and that the defendants had proven they were unaware of the lawsuit until it was decided on Jan 29 by the judge herself.
“The first defendant (Badrul Hisham) denied receiving any court document and stated that the addresses used for the service of writ were no longer his residences at the material time. He also stated that an unknown individual had accepted the document via a courier despite not being authorised,” Justice Arziah said.
The court also found that the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to deliver the cause papers to the first defendants based on the addresses obtained from a different lawsuit, whereby the first defendant had confirmed the addresses via oath.
However, the other lawsuit was an action filed in 2024 and the plaintiff did not make any search with the National Registration Department to find the first defendant’s latest registered address.
Chegubard had also acted promptly after finding out about the court’s decision by filing an application to set it aside on Feb 4.
“This action is consistent with the first defendant’s stance that he had no clue about the proceedings,” Justice Arziah said.
Meanwhile, as for the service of writ to Nurpais, the judge found that the service was done by way of normal registered post and not AR (acknowledgement receipt) registered post.
The address used for the service on Nurpais was a previous address and he had moved out before the writ was filed.
Nurpais also submitted to the court his new tenancy agreement as proof.
“The second defendant (Nurpais) only knew about the court’s decision through a WhatsApp message from an acquaintance on Jan 29,” Justice Arziah said.
The two defendants also argued that there were triable issues such as liability on spontaneous statements during an interview, the defence of fair comment and the absence of mala fide (bad intention).
“The court finds that these issues were not a fiction, but they raise legal questions and facts that need determination through a full trial, especially in the context of defamation law involving digital media and online platforms,” she added.
On Jan 29, Justice Arziah ordered Badrul Hisham and Nurpais to pay Farhash RM300,000 in general damages, RM150,000 in aggravated damages and RM100,000 in exemplary damages, as well as RM40,000 in costs to Farhash.
The case went on a day of trial where Farhash testified. Both the defendants did not enter appearance at that time.
The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in May 26 last year, claiming that the first defendant had made and published defamatory statements against him during an interview conducted by the second defendant on May 7, 2025, which was uploaded to the second defendant’s YouTube account.
