Mahdzir Bin Md Isa (Mendakwa Sebagai Pegawai Awam Pertubuhan Ikram Malaysia Di Bawah Seksyen 9(c) Akta Pertubuhan 1966) v MOHD RIDHUAN TEE BIN ABDULLAH

ba-23ncvc-19-03-2021 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 28 April 2025 • BA-23NCvC-19-03/2021 • 83 min read
65 cases cited (1 SG, 64 foreign)

Catchwords

This case brings before the Court an unfortunate dispute between two influential voices in the realm of Islamic preaching. On the one hand is a prominent organization, dedicated to the propagation of Islamic values. On the other, a renowned preacher, equally committed to the advancement of the faith. One would have expected them to work together for the greater good of the ummah. Instead, the former now stands as the Plaintiff, accusing the latter of defamation, turning what should have been a shared mission into an acrimonious legal contest. It is against this backdrop that this Court is now called upon to untangle the legal complexities of this dispute and adjudicate on the defamation claim before it.

Judges (1)

Choong Yeow Choy Delivered

Counsel (10)

Mu'az Aiman Halem Auzan & Associates Firm Zulpadli & Edham Firm Ahmed Burhan Tee bin Abdullah Counsel Defendant Ashmadi bin Othman Counsel Defendant Awang Armadajaya Bin Awang Mahmud Counsel Plaintiff Buhsro bin Mohamad Anuar Counsel Defendant Marwan bin Abdullah Counsel Plaintiff Shakirah binti Ahmad Sharifuddin Counsel Plaintiff Syafiqah binti Abd Razak Counsel Plaintiff Umi Kelathun binti Abd Ghani Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

Mahdzir Bin Md Isa Akta Pertubuhan 1966) Plaintiff Mohd Ridhuan Tee bin Abdullah Defendant

Statutes Cited

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)
Defamation Act 1957
s 9
Federal Constitution
Rules of Court 2012
Societies Act 1966 (Cap 335)
s 9(c)

Cases Cited (65)

SLR (1)
[1996] 1 SLR 313
UK (9)
[1891] 2 Ch 269 [1930] 1 KB 130 [1963] 3 All ER 952 [1964] AC 234 [1968] 2 QB 157 [1971] 2 All ER 1156 [1971] AC 309 [1998] QB 459 [2005] 1 AC 253
MY (55)
[1964] 1 MLRH 296 [1965] 1 MLJ 142 [1972] 1 MLJ 45 [1973] 1 MLRH 153 [1977] 1 MLRH 508 [1984] 2 MLRH 122 [1988] 1 MLRH 653 [1988] 2 MLJ 173 [1989] 1 CLJ 321 [1989] 1 MLJ 315 [1989] 3 MLJ 1 [1990] 1 MLJ 390 [1995] 2 AMR 1776 [1995] 2 CLJ 912 [1995] 2 MLJ 493 [1995] 3 AMR 2559 [1995] 3 CLJ 783 [1995] 3 MLJ 189 [1995] 4 MLRH 877 [1996] 1 MLJ 393 [1996] 2 AMR 1457 [1996] 2 MLJ 57 [1997] 2 CLJ 104 [2006] 2 MLJ 689 [2008] 2 MLRH 360 [2009] 4 MLRH 48 [2012] 2 CLJ 619 [2012] 2 MLJ 394 [2012] 3 MLRH 124 [2015] 6 AMR 66 [2015] 6 MLJ 187 [2015] 8 CLJ 477 [2016] 2 MLJ 640 [2016] AMEJ 0795 [2017] AMEJ 1321 [2018] 3 CLJ 726 [2019] 2 AMR 525 [2019] 3 CLJ 729 [2019] 3 MLJ 720 [2019] AMEJ 1413 [2019] MLJU 1218 [2021] 2 MLJ 514 [2021] 4 CLJ 155 [2021] 4 CLJ 327 [2021] AMEJ 0200 [2021] MLJU 239 [2022] 2 MLJ 608 [2022] 3 MLJ 758 [2022] 4 AMR 695 [2022] 4 AMR 753 [2022] 4 MLJ 454 [2022] 5 CLJ 487 [2022] 5 CLJ 847 [2024] 5 AMR 341 [2024] 6 CLJ 635

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ba-23ncvc-19-03-2021)