Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR Commented [WL1]:

IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORIES OF KUALA LUMPUR


HIGH COURT 3
(CIVIL DIVISION)
CIVIL SUIT NO. WA-22NCVC-94-09-2018

BETWEEN

DATO’ NAZIR RAHMAN BIN RAZAK


(NRIC NO: 620131-14-4627) …1ST
PLAINTIFF

SOLIDOR SDN BHD


(COMPANY NO: 427493- K) …2ND
PLAINTIFF

AND

MKINI DOT COM SDN BHD


(COMPANY NO: 676595 - T)
…1STDEFENDANT

LEE WENG KEAT


(NRIC NO: 681130-89-5013)
…2NDDEFENDANT

WONG TECK CHI


(NRIC NO: 711218-07-2793)
…3RDDEFENDANT

PLAINTIFFSAFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
(in support of the Plaintiffs’ striking outOrder 18 r19 a application)

I, DATO’ NAZIR RAHMAN BIN RAZAK (NRIC No.: 620131-14-4627), a Malaysian


citizen of full age with an address at No.246, Lorong Setia Alam, Taman Royale Eco,
Seksyen13, 40000 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul Ehsan do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm
and state as follows:
1. I am the 1st Plaintiff named in this suit

2. I have been duly authorized by all the Plaintiffs to affirm this affidavit on their behalf
the authorization letter by all plsintiff are is exhibited as :NRR 1”

3. Unless stated herein, the facts deposed herein are within my personal knowledge
and/or from the records and documents of the Plaintiffs to which I haveunrestricted
access thereto.

4. The purpose of this Affidavit is to support the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Application to strike
out the Statement of Defence dated on 5th of October 2018 filed by the Defendants.

5. I have been advised by the Plaintiff’s solicitors and verily believe pursuant to Order
18 Rule 19 (1)(a), (b), or (c) of the Rule of Court 2012, that the Defendants’ Statement
of Defence discloses no reasonable defence, is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or it
may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action.

6. I crave leave of this Honourable Court to refer the following cause papers: -

a. Plaintiffs’ Writ and Statement of Claim dated 30th of September 2018


(hereinafter will be referred as “Plaintiff’s Writ and Statement of Claim”); and

b. Defendants’ Statement of Defence dated 5th of October 2018

A copy of the Plaintiffs’ Writ and Statement of Claim, both dated 30 th of September 2018
are now produced, shown to me and collectively marked as Exhibit NRR“A-1”.

A copy of the Defendants’ Statement of Defence, dated 5th of October 2018 are now
produced, shown to me and collectively marked as Exhibit “A-2”.
Parties

7. Based on paragraph 1 of the Statement of Claim, the first Plaintiff is Dato’ Nazir
Rahman Bin Razak (NRIC NO: 620131-14-4627) a Malaysian citizen is and was at all
material times the Director for SolidorSdn Bhd. His place of residence is at No.246,
Lorong Setia Alam, Taman Royale Eco, Seksyen 13, 40000 Shah Alam, Selangor Darul
Ehsan.

8. The second is Plaintiff, SolidorSdnBhd (COMPANY NO: 676595 - T) is and was at all
material time a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965; having its
registered address at Suite D-08-02 Plaza Mont' Kiara, No. 2 Jalan Kiara, Mont' Kiara
50480 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur having the business
consultation with regards to national and international business and finance.

9. The first Defendant is Mkini Dot Com SdnBhd (COMPANY NO: 676595 - T) is and was
at all material time a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 and is a
licensed media registered under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998;
having its registered address at BalaiBerita, 31, Jalan Riong, 59100 Kuala Lumpur,
Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. The first defendant owns and operates an online
news portal known as Malaysiakini which website is www.malaysiakini.com.

10. The second Defendant, Lee Weng Keat (NRIC NO: 681130-89-5013) a Malaysian
citizen is and was at all material times the assistant news editor of Malaysiakini. His
place of residence is at No. 88, Jalan Binjai, 50450 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah
Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur.

11. The third Defendant, Wong Teck Chi (NRIC NO: 711218-07-2793) a Malaysian citizen
is and was at all material times the senior journalist of Malaysiakini. His place of
residence is at No.23, Jalan Cindai, 50450 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala
Lumpur.

A copy of the company search on Mkini Dot Com SdnBhd conducted with with
Companies Commission of Malaysia is now produced, shown to me and collectively
marked as Exhibit “A-3”.

12. On 19th March 2018, the Defendants had authored and authorized the publication of
the first (1) Article that defames the Plaintiffs.

A copy of particulars of the impugned part in the 1st Articleis now produced, shown to
me and collectively marked as Exhibit “A-4”.

13. On 2nd August 2018, the Defendants authored and authorized the publication of the
second (2) Article.

A copy of particulars of the impugned part in the 2nd Article is now produced, shown to
me and collectively marked as Exhibit “A-5”.

14. Based on paragraph 3(a)(i), the Defendants submittedthat they had exercise their
duties for a proper purpose, good faith and with balance in the best interest of the
readers and the Plaintiffs reputation on these grounds;

a. The two (2) Articles were published pertaining to matters of public interest on
a national and international scale as the Defendants online news portal were
relied by the national and international community for independent media
information.

15. Based on paragraph 3 (a)(iii), the Defendants relied The Defendants submitted that Commented [WL2]: So far very good well done umar and
group
the two (2) Articles relied on the defence of fair comment based on these grounds;
a. The words in the two (2) Articles are made in the form of comment and not a
statement of fact as the Defendants had commented on the financial difficulties
faced by the 2nd Plaintiff under the 1st Plaintiff’s leadership

b. The comment made in the two (2) Articles was based on true facts as the 2nd
Defendant went into financial difficulties due to the 1st Plaintiff’s directorship
as stated in Paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim

16. Based on paragraph 3(a)(iv)(1), the Defendants contended that the two (2) Articles
were made to safeguard the interest of profession of consultation in financial and
business on national and international level by giving information to the national and
international community on the mismanagement of the Plaintiffs.

17. The Defendant also submitted in paragraph 3(a)(iv)(2), the intention for the
publication of the two (2) Articles is to protect the credibility, integrity and interest
of trade and business industry in Malaysia as corruption and mismanagement by the
Plaintiffs would hinder investors to invest in Malaysia

18. Based on paragraph (7)(a)(i), the Defendants denies the Particulars of Special
Damages AS the loss of economic opportunities are too remote as the Defendants had
no knowledge of the training services agreement to be entered between the Plaintiffs
and Viera Bank Co. Ltd and Government of Turkey

19. Based on paragraph 7(a)(ii), the Defendants also stated that the cost of treatment in
Pantai Hospital Kuala Lumpur by the first Plaintiff could be reduced by going to the
Government Hospital as psychiatric treatment provided by the Government Hospital
is cheaper.
The Application to Strike Out the Defendants’ Defences

20. I am advised by the Plaintiff’s solicitors and verily believe that the Defendants’
defences in this action ought to be struck off on the following grounds: -

a. Since the publication of the Two(2) Articles (refer to “A-4” and “A-5”), the
Plaintiff had been prejudiced since the second Plaintiff, SolidorSdnBhd to this
date has already suffered economic losses amounting to RM 475,000.00

i. The said articles contain malicious intention to the Plaintiffs’


reputation, trade and business;

ii. The articles were posted on the Defendants website, that means the
two (2) Articles are accessible by anyone and it had caused the
Plaintiffs’ reputation to be tarnished in this country and it includes the
international level as well; and

iii. the Defendants had maliciously posted defamatory remarks against the
Plaintiffs’ credibility, integrity and efficiency.

b. The Plaintiff have forwarded four (4) letters to the Defendants requesting
them to make a public apology and withdraw the two (2) Articles posted on
Malaysiakini website.

i. The Plaintiff sent to the Defendants the first letter on the 29th of March
2018
ii. The Plaintiff additionally sent to the Defendants 3 more letters of
reminder dated 20th April 2018, 3rd August 2018 and 10th August
2018respectively.

iii. The Defendants however, still had failed to respond to the forwarded
letters and failed to withdraw and apologize for the (2) Articles
published on the first Defendant’s website.

A copy of the four (4) letters that has been sent to the Defendantsis now produced, shown
to me and collectively marked as Exhibit “NRRA-6”.

c. It is the Plaintiffs’ rights and liberties and the Plaintiffs provided that the
Plaintiff had a reasonable reason to go to a Private Hospital for the treatment.

i. The first Plaintiff is unable to work efficiently due to the Psychological


and Mental disorder suffered from the two (2) articles that have been
published by the Defendants

ii. Due to the lacks of services that were provided in the General Hospital
the Plaintiff need to obtain the treatment from a Private Hospital for a
better service in psychological treatment and medications; and
iii. The first Plaintiff is the Director to the second Plaintiff and the First
Plaintiff requires immediate medical attention as the first Plaintiff have
the responsibility to efficiently run the second Plaintiff (a Company).

A copy of the first Plaintiff’s Medical Reports is now produced, shown to me and collectively
marked as Exhibit “A-7”.

A copy of the first Plaintiff’s Medical Billsis now produced, shown to me and collectively
marked as Exhibit “A-8”.

d. The Defendants failed to prove that the comments stated in the two (2)
Articles were fair and not malicious

i. The Defendants did not prove that the comments made in the two (2)
Articles (refer to “A-4” and “A-5”), had been done with a thorough
research and based on concrete evidences.

ii. Thus, making the comments made in the two (2) articles were
malicious and have a defamatory weightage towards the Plaintiffs.

21. I am further advised by the Plaintiffs’ Solicitors, for the reasons stated above, the
Statement of Defence file by the Defendants discloses no reasonable defenceas the
casemay be, that the Defences given were in fact scandalous, frivolous and vexatious
or it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the actionthus is unsustainable
in law and should be struck out.

22. In the circumstances, the Plaintiffs therefore humbly pray that the PLaintiffs’ Notice
of Application filed herein be allowed with costs and costs to be paid by the Defendant
to the Plaintiff immediately.
Affirmed by the abovenamed deponent )

DATO’ NAZIR RAHMAN BIN RAZAK )

(NRIC No.: 620131-14-4627) )

At Messrs IzatHazzail& Associates )…………………………………………………….

In the State of Kuala Lumpur )DATO’ NAZIR RAHMAN BIN RAZAK

This 9th October 2018 )(NRIC No.: 620131-14-4627)

Before me,

……………………………………………………………………

(Commissioner for Oaths)

This AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT is filed by MESSRS IZAT HAZZAIL & ASSOCIATES of 5th
Floor, Wisma IH, No. 12, Jalan Dang Wangi, 50100 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan
Kuala Lumpur solicitor acting on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

[Ref: IHA/CI/DF/0345/18]