PUTRAJAYA: Former newscaster Sharma Kumari Oam Parkash and her husband have won the appeal against the High Court decision ordering them to pay RM1.8 million in damages to businessman Abdullah Sani Hashim yesterday.

In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeal panel comprising Datuk Gopal Sri Ram, Datuk James Foong and Datuk Suriyadi Halim Omar allowed the couple’s appeal with cost.

Sharma Kumari and husband Pardeep Kumar Om were sued by Abdullah Sani who claimed she had falsely and maliciously spoken defamatory words about him to two policemen at the Bukit Bandaraya primary school area in Jalan Bangkung, Bangsar, on Jan 5, 1998.

In the statement of claim, Abdullah Sani said Sharma Kumari had pointed at him and said “that man and his brother Datuk Abdullah Hishan Hashim tried to kidnap my son”.

On March 2, 2000, High Court Judge Datuk RK Nathan ordered Sharma Kumari to pay RM1 million and Pardeep Kumar RM800,000 in damages to Abdullah Sani, who is the elder brother of Datuk Abdullah Hishan.

In his 30-page judgement, Nathan said both the defendants well and truly knew that there was not an iota of truth in their allegation of an attempted kidnapping and that their acts were to his mind raw and unexpurgated versions of conspiracy.

On appeal, Sri Ram said the alleged slanderous words pleaded by Abdullah Sani in his statement of claim did not contain any reference to him.

“In the present instance, the pleaded words are not capable being regarded as making any reference to the plaintiff. It follows that a vital ingredient of the tort is absent. On this simple ground, I would allow the husband’s appeal,” he said.

He also said the finding of conspiracy made by judge Nathan against the appellants was unjust and therefore could not stand.

“The judge, by his decision, gave effect to an entirely new case which the plaintiff had not made out in his own pleadings. The plaintiff’s pleaded case did not raise any charge of conspiracy. The judge therefore found for the plaintiff on an unpleaded case, this is plainly wrong and manifestly unjust,” he said.

Meanwhile, Foong said the High Court judgement was not only bias against the appellants but was also obsessed in wanting to return a verdict without due consideration to the law.

“This view is fortified by the High Court’s ruling that both appellants had conspired to defame the respondent when this was not even pleaded in the statement of claim,” he said.

Suriyadi who gave a dissenting judgement, allowed Pardeep Kumar’s appeal but affirmed the High Court order of the liability and costs on Sharma Kumari.

The couple was represented by counsel Lambert Rasa-Ratnam while Karpal Singh acted for Abdullah Sani.

— Bernama