INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The defamation case we have chosen is Ifa Raziah v Sain Group Corporation
Sdn. Bhd. It is a civil case as the defamatory statement being made had affected her
reputation as an artist and impacted her business.

Civil defamation is provided under the Defamation Act 1957. Under this Act,
defamation is established if a plaintiff is able to show that publication of the
defamatory statement was done, and the defamatory statement made, with malicious
intent and/or the words in the defamatory statement in their natural and ordinary
meaning reflect the defamatory intention. Further, the plaintiff must show that the
statement is not a fair comment or justifiable.

As stated in the Principle of Corporate Compliance manual, there are three

types of defamation which are libel, slander and innuendo. According to the manual,
the type of defamation in this case is libel as the defamatory statement is in a
permanent form as it were published in a newspaper.

The plaintiff which is Saripah Raziah Mustapha or famously known as Ifa

Raziah had filed a defamation suit against the defendant, Sain Group Corporation
Sdn. Bhd. for publishing an untrue statement in an article for the purpose of
advertisement. The article entitled “Ifa Raziah bebas alahan – ajak rakan artis minum
Power Nest”.

The article claimed that she had allergies and she was charged on giving a
statement in the form of advertising for health marketing agency, Sain Group
Corporation Sdn. Bhd to the newspaper reporter, M. Rozi Hassan. However, in her
statement of claim, she denied that she has given any approval or permission to the
press media as well as giving any announcement as published in the article and the
statement published is the statement made by the publisher.

On 28 June, at the Session Court Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur, Ifa Raziah
demanded from Sain Group Corporation Sdn. Bhd. RM50,000 for the damage sought
being done on her with interest and costs.
 The defendant claim that they had no knowledge of the published advertorial
and that they did not have any connection with M. Rozi Hassan, the reporter who
wrote the story, and Mingguan Warta Perdana. The defendant also claimed that Ifa
Raziah was suing the wrong party and that they were merely the company marketing
the product.

Sessions Judge Jagjit Singh Bant Singh dismissed the claim made by Sain
Group Corporation Sdn. Bhd and the court found the matter to be completely
irrelevant. He stated that Ifa as a plaintiff witness represent as a true witness and do
not have any reason to lie. The judge accepted the plaintiff’s pronouncement as the
article had affected her reputation as an artist and impacted the sales of her own line
of beauty products named Sefirah Razia, as consumers were confused as to which
product was hers.

In his judgements, Jagjit Singh said, the court allowed the plaintiff’s claims
amounted to RM50,000 as compensation for the damage done on her reputation,
including interest at 6 percent from the judgement date until full settlement.
 BACKGROUND OF JUDGES

The session court judges for Ifa Raziah’s defamation case is Dato’ Jagjit Singh a/l
Bant Singh. He is one of the partners in Jeevaretnam & Co. He holds a Bachelor of
Laws (Honours) from the University of London and a Master of Law with Merit in
Commercial and Corporate Law from King’s College, University of London.

He has served as a Magistrate, Federal Counsel in the Civil Division of Jabatan

Peguam Negara (Attorney General’s Chambers), Deputy Treasury Solicitor, Legal
Advisor, Ministry of Health, Deputy Public Prosecutor, Director of Prosecution
Program in ILKAP, Senior Assistant Parliamentary Draftsman, Senior Federal
Counsel in the Law Reform and Research Division of Jabatan Peguam Negara,
Sessions Court Judge in Kuantan, Seremban and Kuala Lumpur throughout his 28
years in the Judicial and Legal Service.

As a Sessions Court Judge, Dato’ Jagjit has presided over numerous civil and
criminal cases including commercial crime cases such as money laundering, Security
Commission offences, criminal breach of trust and cheating. Many of his judgements
have been reported in the Current Law Journal (CLJ), All Malaysia Reports (AMR)
and Sessions and Magistrate’s Cases (SMC).