Khamis, 1 Julai 2010

Ex-newscaster and hubby win appeal against suit- APA KAITAN SHARMA DENGAN UMNO?

Sharma: Court allowed the couple’s appeal with costs.
PUTRAJAYA: Former newscaster Sharma Kumari Shukla and her husband won their appeal against the High Court decision ordering them to pay RM1.8mil in damages to businessman Abdullah Sani Hashim.
In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeal panel comprising Justices Gopal Sri Ram, James Foong and Suriyadi Halim Omar allowed the couple’s appeal with costs yesterday.
Abdullah Sani had sued Sharma Kumari and husband Pardeep Kumar Om Prakash claiming 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, then High Court Justice R.K. Nathan ordered Sharma Kumari to pay RM1mil and Pardeep Kumar RM800,000 in damages to Abdullah Sani, who is the elder brother of Datuk Abdullah Hishan.
In his 30-page judgment, Justice 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, Justice Sri Ram ruled the alleged slanderous words did not contain any reference to Abdullah Sani.
“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 Justice 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.
Justice Foong said the High Court judgment was not only biased 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 judgment, allowed Pardeep Kumar’s appeal but affirmed the order of the liability and costs on Sharma Kumari.
The couple were represented by counsel Lambert Rasa Ratnam while Karpal Singh acted for Abdullah Sani.