INTRODUCTION
On 24 June 2026, the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No B-02(NCvC)(W)-849-05/2025) unanimously dismissed the appeal by IKRAM and affirmed the decision of the High Court in Mahdzir bin Md Isa (suing as Pegawai Awam Pertubuhan Ikram Malaysia) v Mohd Ridhuan Tee bin Abdullah [2025] 10 MLJ 605.
The High Court held that IKRAM, being a society registered under the Societies Act 1966, lacked the requisite locus standi to maintain an action for defamation.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Mahdzir bin Md Isa (“Plaintiff”), commenced the action solely in his representative capacity as the registered public officer of Pertubuhan Ikram Malaysia (“IKRAM”). IKRAM described itself as a registered Islamic missionary and welfare organisation with substantial domestic and international influence.
Mohd Ridhuan Tee bin Abdullah (“Defendant”) is an academician, religious preacher and lecturer at Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin and a public figure in Malaysia.
The Plaintiff pleaded that the Defendant had defamed IKRAM by publishing three articles on his personal Facebook account: –
- i) Ikramisasi Ketika Wabak Covid19 Melanda;
- ii) Insaflah Ikram Sebelum Karam; and
- iii) Kenapa Ikram begitu baik dengan ultra kiasu, Dong Zong?
The Plaintiff contended that the postings contained defamatory imputations, referred specifically to IKRAM and were published by the Defendant to third parties. The Plaintiff further contended that the postings had injured IKRAM’s reputation as an Islamic missionary, education and welfare organisation.
The Plaintiff sought, among other reliefs, an injunction against further publication, an order to delete the three postings, a retraction and public apology, general damages, aggravated damages of RM50 million and exemplary damages of RM50 million.
The Defendant admitted publishing the three postings. His primary contention was that IKRAM, as a society registered under the Societies Act, had no locus standi to initiate or maintain a defamation action.
The Defendant also contended that the postings did not refer to IKRAM, did not bear any defamatory imputations and were protected by the defences of justification, fair comment and/or qualified privilege.
FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT
Locus Standi
The High Court held that the Federal Court’s reasoning in Lim Lip Eng v Ong Ka Chuan (as a public officer of a society registered as Malaysian Chinese Association) [2022] 4 MLJ 454 was not restricted in its application to political parties alone. The Federal Court in Lim Lip Eng held that a political party did not possess a reputation capable of sustaining an action for defamation.
The High Court explained that the Federal Court’s decision was premised primarily on section 9(c) of the Societies Act. This provision applies to all societies and not solely to political parties. Unlike an incorporated company, a society is not, on its own, a legal entity. It is dependent on its members to sue and cannot sue or be sued in its own name.
In view of the Federal Court’s binding pronouncement in Lim Lip Eng, the High Court answered the questions concerning IKRAM’s locus standi and reputation in the negative. The Plaintiff’s action, which was brought in his representative capacity on behalf of IKRAM, was accordingly dismissed.
Whether the Postings Were Defamatory
The High Court considered the issue of defamation in the event that its finding on locus standi was overturned by the appellate court.
The High Court found that the postings referred to IKRAM and were published by the Defendant to third parties. The elements of reference and publication were therefore fulfilled.
The defamatory character of the postings was to be assessed from the perspective of an ordinary reasonable person of fair average intelligence, who was not avid for scandal, but who might engage in some degree of loose thinking and reading between the lines without being unduly suspicious.
In determining whether the postings were defamatory, they had to be read as a whole. A holistic approach was to be preferred over a piecemeal or selective reading of individual words, sentences or paragraphs.
Having considered the postings in their full context, the High Court found that they were capable of and did convey defamatory imputations concerning IKRAM. The defamatory sting of the postings was clear and unmistakable.
Justification
The High Court was not satisfied that the Defendant had discharged the burden of proving the truth of the defamatory imputations. Many of the online articles relied upon emanated from anonymous or unverifiable sources. In the absence of credible, independent and substantiated evidence, the defence of justification could not be sustained.
The Defendant also failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove the serious allegations and insinuations of misconduct made against IKRAM. The presumption of falsity therefore remained unrebutted.
Fair Comment
Although the postings concerned matters of public interest, the Defendant failed to prove that his comments were based on true and established facts. A defendant cannot invent or assume facts and then seek to cloak those assumptions as fair comment.
As the alleged substratum of facts had not been satisfactorily established, the foundation upon which the comments were made was fatally deficient. Without a proven basis of facts, the defence of fair comment collapsed.
Qualified Privilege
The Defendant did not plead or prove, any reciprocity of interest or duty between himself and the readers of his Facebook postings. That failure was fatal to the defence.
The Defendant’s status as a blogger did not, without more, confer any special legal, moral or social duty to broadcast defamatory allegations to the general public. Qualified privilege was not a licence to defame under the guise of public communication.
For those reasons, the High Court found that the defence of qualified privilege was not available to the Defendant and had to be rejected.
Conditional Assessment of Damages
Had the High Court found in favour of IKRAM on the issue of locus standi, it would have held that IKRAM was entitled to damages. However, IKRAM failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate its claims for loss of income or goodwill.
The High Court was not persuaded by IKRAM’s proposed method of calculating damages based on the number of members or the number of defamatory postings. It rejected the proposed valuation of RM5,000 for each member and the alternative calculation of RM200,000 for each posting.
Leaving aside the question of locus standi, the High Court considered an award of RM150,000 in general damages to be appropriate, together with interest at 8% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment.
The claims for aggravated and exemplary damages were disallowed. The High Court would also have granted an injunction against further publication and ordered the immediate and permanent deletion of the three postings.
As IKRAM’s claim was dismissed on the locus standi point, the High Court ordered each party to bear its own costs.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Section 9(c) of the Societies Act applies to all registered societies and not solely to political parties. The section permits proceedings to be commenced in the name of a registered public officer but does not confer separate legal personality or a reputation capable of sustaining an action for defamation. Therefore, a registered society is not, on its own, a legal entity and cannot sue or be sued in its own name.
However, an individual member may bring an action in his or her personal capacity where that member is sufficiently identified by the defamatory publication and his or her own reputation is injured.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion. It should not be relied upon as a substitute for specific legal advice. No person should act (or refrain from acting) based on this article without obtaining advice on the specific facts and circumstances. Halim Hong & Quek does not accept responsibility or liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on this article. Halim Hong & Quek reserves the right to update, amend or withdraw this article at any time. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to DISPUTES DECODED BY HHQ, our bi-monthly legal update, at https://mailchi.mp/hhq/2nofd6rjlt to receive our latest legal updates and articles. You may also visit the HHQ website at https://hhq.com.my/insights/ for further articles and insights from our team.
About the authors
Chew Jin Heng
Principal Associate
Dispute Resolution
Halim Hong & Quek
jhchew@hhq.com.my
○
Chia Kay Len
Intern
Dispute Resolution
Halim Hong & Quek
kl.chia@hhq.com.my
