.png)
ACTIVIST Hisham Shaharin or Chegubard, and content creator Nurpais Ismail have successfully set aside a High Court judgment ordering them to pay RM550,000 in damages to Datuk Seri Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak after being found to have defamed the businessman.
The defamation suit is in relation to Farhash's claim that Chegubard defamed him in an interview by implying that he (Farhash) used his position to control and manipulate large companies.
High Court Judge Arziah Apandi ordered the trial of the defamation suit to be reheard after ruling that Chegubard and Nurpais had succeeded in proving that the writ of summons and Farhash's (plaintiff) statement of claim, which were served on them, were not in order.
Arziah also accepted the memorandum of appearance of both defendants (informing them that they would respond to the summons) and ordered them to file a defence within seven days from today, while Farhash must file a reply within 14 days.
She also set June 19 for case management through e-review proceedings.
Chegubard's lawyer, Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali, when met after the proceedings, said that with today's decision, the trial of the case needs to be retried, and his party is allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff.
Farhash filed the suit against the defendant on May 26, 2025; however, although the writ was properly served, neither of the defendants appeared in court or filed a statement of defence.
Farhash was the only witness who gave evidence at the trial on January 12.
The plaintiff filed the suit on the allegation that the first defendant had made and published defamatory statements against him in an interview conducted by the second defendant on May 7, 2025, which was uploaded to the second defendant's YouTube account.
Arziah, in her judgment today, said that the defendants presented evidence that they never had knowledge of the proceedings of the suit until after the judgment was delivered on January 29.
She said that the court made the decision after examining the submissions of both parties and considering that the writ of summons and statement of claim sent to Chegubard (the first defendant) were received by an unknown individual.
She said that the second defendant's submission was that the same documents and cause papers were sent to an address that Nurpais no longer resides at.
"Although the plaintiff has taken reasonable and appropriate steps, including informing the first defendant's lawyer identified in a separate case, there remains uncertainty as to whether those steps were successful in ensuring that the defendant was aware of the existence of the proceedings.
"The court takes into account that the first defendant acted promptly after learning of the judgment in the case dated 29 January 2026, which is consistent with his claim that he did not know about the case in advance.
"Rule 10 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 is clear and specific on the duty of service by hand delivery or by registered post AR (Acknowledgement of Receipt).
"The service (electronically) allegedly used by the plaintiff does not meet the requirements of service by hand delivery; no proof of registered post AR was produced in court to show that service was met," she said.
As for the method of service by electronic communication against Nurpais, the judge said that although the information about it was publicly available, it raised the question of whether it was sufficient.
She said that in the circumstances, the court was of the opinion that there was a strong basis to find that the service of the summons on the two defendants was irregular.
The judge said that an order for substitute service obtained on a basis that may be inaccurate cannot confirm a process that was originally irregular because it denies the defendants the fundamental right to justice.
"The judgment obtained in such circumstances should be set aside in the interests of justice," she said.
In today's proceedings, Nurpais was represented by lawyer Mohd Zubir Embong, while Farhash was represented by lawyer Nurin Husnina Hussein.
When deciding on the suit earlier, Arziah said that the court found that the statement in question was defamatory of the plaintiff and the meaning of the defamation was serious, harmful and actionable. – May 19, 2026