June 19 Case Management For Farhash Wafa's Defamation Suit Against Chegubard And Influencer
KUALA LUMPUR, May 19 (Bernama) -- The High Court today set June 19 for case management of a defamation suit brought by businessman Datuk Seri Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak against activist Badrul Hisham Shaharin and an influencer over alleged defamatory statements made during an interview in May last year.
Judge Arziah Mohamed Apandi ordered Badrul Hisham (Chegubard) and influencer Nurpais Ismail to file their defences within seven days, and directed Farhash Wafa to file his reply within 14 days.
Earlier, Arziah allowed the application by both defendants to set aside a previous court judgment ordering them to pay RM550,000 in damages to Farhash Wafa.
They filed the application to set aside the Jan 29 judgment, which the court had granted to the plaintiff after proceeding with the trial in their absence.
The court delivered that judgment after finding that the writ of summons and statement of claim had been properly served through substituted service.
As the defendants did not appear, the court proceeded with an ex parte trial and heard only the plaintiff, Farhash Wafa.
In today's ruling, the court found the service of the writ on both defendants defective, as the defendants had proven that they did not know of the proceedings until after the Jan 29, 2026 judgment.
"The first defendant (Badrul Hisham) denied receiving any court documents and stated that the addresses used for service of the writ were no longer his places of residence at the material time. He also stated that the documents sent via courier were received by an unknown individual who was not authorised," the judge said.
Arziah found that the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to serve papers on the first defendant using addresses that were confirmed under oath in a previous defamation case.
"However, that previous suit was filed in 2024, and the court also finds that no National Registration Department (NRD) search was conducted by the plaintiff to obtain the first defendant's current registered address," she said.
The judge said the first defendant acted promptly by filing an application to set aside the judgment on Feb 4, just days after it was delivered, which supported his claim that he did not know of the proceedings.
Regarding service of the writ on Nurpais, the judge said the second defendant claimed the plaintiff stated in his affidavit that service was made via AR registered mail, but the evidence only showed ordinary registered mail.
"The address used for service was the second defendant's residence only from Sept 1, 2020, to Aug 32, 2021. He had moved before the writ was filed and submitted his tenancy agreement as proof," the judge said.
“The court found that the plaintiff never used electronic communication to serve the second defendant, even though his WhatsApp and email were available on his YouTube channel.
“The second defendant only learned of the judgment via a WhatsApp message from an acquaintance on Jan 29”, she said, adding that no NRD search was conducted for his current registered address.
Arziah further said both defendants raised several arguable issues, including liability for spontaneous interview statements, fair comment and absence of malice.
"The court finds these issues are not frivolous but raise legal and factual questions requiring a full trial, especially in defamation law involving digital and online platforms. This meets the threshold for an arguable defence," she said.
At today's proceedings, lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali appeared for Badrul Hisham, while Mohd Zubir Embong represented Nurpais. Farhash Wafa was represented by Nurin Husnina Hussein.
Farhash Wafa filed the suit on May 26, 2025, alleging that the first defendant made defamatory statements about him during an interview conducted by the second defendant on May 7, 2025, which was uploaded to the second defendant's YouTube channel, implying, among other things, that the plaintiff used his position to control and manipulate large companies.
-- BERNAMA
