.png)
THE High Court in Kuala Lumpur has set aside a RM550,000 defamation judgment awarded to businessman Datuk Seri Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak and ordered the entire case to be retried after ruling that court papers were improperly served on political activist Badrul Hisham Shaharin, widely known as Chegubard, and social media personality Nurpais Ismail.
Judicial Commissioner Arziah Apandi held that both defendants successfully established that the writ of summons and statement of claim had not been delivered in accordance with the Rules of Court, effectively denying them the opportunity to properly respond to the suit before judgment was entered.
The ruling overturns an earlier High Court decision issued on Jan 29, which had found Chegubard and Nurpais liable for defaming Farhash and ordered them to collectively pay RM550,000 in damages.
The suit stemmed from an interview published on YouTube on May 7, 2025, in which Chegubard allegedly made defamatory remarks implying that Farhash wielded political influence to manipulate and control major companies for personal benefit.
Arziah ordered both defendants to file their defence within seven days, while Farhash must submit his reply within 14 days. The court fixed June 19 for case management through e-review proceedings.
In explaining the decision, the judge said the court had earlier proceeded ex parte after being satisfied that substituted service of the legal documents had been properly carried out when the defendants failed to appear or file memorandums of appearance.
However, subsequent evidence presented by the defendants showed they were allegedly unaware of the proceedings until after judgment had already been delivered.
The court heard that documents addressed to Chegubard were received by an unidentified person, while papers intended for Nurpais had been sent to an address she no longer occupied.
“Although the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps, including notifying lawyers previously associated with the first defendant in separate proceedings, uncertainty still existed as to whether those actions ensured the defendants were aware of the suit,” Arziah said.
The judge further noted that Chegubard acted swiftly upon learning of the Jan 29 judgment, supporting his claim that he had no prior knowledge of the proceedings.
“Order 10 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 is clear and specific regarding the obligation of personal service or service through registered post with acknowledgment of receipt.
“The electronic service allegedly used by the plaintiff did not fulfil the requirements for personal service, and no evidence of registered acknowledgment was produced before the court to establish compliance,” she ruled.
Arziah also questioned whether electronic communication methods used against Nurpais were legally sufficient despite some of the information being publicly accessible.
“In those circumstances, the court is of the view that there are strong grounds to find that service of the summons on both defendants was irregular,” she said.
The judge stressed that an order for substituted service obtained on potentially inaccurate grounds could not legitimise a fundamentally defective process.
“A judgment obtained under such circumstances ought to be set aside in the interests of justice,” she added.
The court further held that the defendants had raised legitimate legal and factual issues warranting a full trial, including questions surrounding liability for spontaneous statements made during interviews, the defence of fair comment and the absence of malicious intent.
“The court finds these issues are not frivolous but raise genuine questions of law and fact requiring scrutiny and determination through a full trial, particularly in the context of defamation law involving digital media and online platforms,” Arziah said.
Lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, representing Chegubard, said the ruling now enables the defence to fully cross-examine Farhash during retrial proceedings.
Farhash originally filed the lawsuit on May 26, 2025, alleging that statements made by the defendants portrayed him as someone who rose through political connections rather than merit, manipulated political systems for personal advantage and embodied corruption and arrogance in politics.
In the earlier judgment that has now been nullified, Arziah had ruled that the remarks seriously damaged Farhash’s reputation and lowered him in the estimation of reasonable members of society.
The court previously found that the allegations effectively accused Farhash of corruption, cronyism, abuse of power and manipulation of democratic institutions, describing them as among the gravest accusations that could be directed at a public figure.
Nurpais was represented during the latest proceedings by lawyer Mohd Zubir Embong, while Farhash was represented by counsel Nurin Husnina Hussein. - May 19, 2026
