What was the basis for the default judgment against the social media user?

Question

Accepted Answer

Default Judgment Against Social Media User Stands Following Court Ruling

The High Court in Alor Setar dismissed a social media user's application to set aside a default judgment in a defamation suit filed by Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail. The court found that the defendant, Muhammad Zubair Ismail, failed to present a credible defence to justify setting aside the judgment. Consequently, the default judgment entered against him on December 8, 2025, remains valid, and the case will proceed to the assessment of damages.
Failure to Establish a Credible Defence

Muhammad Zubair Ismail's application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed because he did not establish a credible defence that would warrant the case proceeding to trial. The judge noted that the defendant failed to attach a draft statement of defence to his application, which hindered the court's ability to assess the basis of his intended defence. This lack of a clear defence, coupled with issues surrounding service, led to the dismissal of his application.
Contradictory Statements in Affidavit

The court identified significant contradictions within the defendant's own affidavit. While Muhammad Zubair claimed the statements he made were true, he simultaneously asserted that he could not recall or verify their contents. This assertion was based on his electronic devices being seized by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) and his social media accounts being blocked. The judge ruled that a person cannot simultaneously claim a statement is true and deny knowledge of its actual contents.
Insufficient Identification for Defence

Although the defendant argued he never expressly mentioned the official name 'Saifuddin Nasution', the court found that the identifying elements were sufficient for a defamation action. A Facebook poster clearly displayed the plaintiff's face, and nicknames such as 'Pudin' and 'Pudin Pokka' were used in videos related to Kedah politics. The court concluded that the visual identification combined with commonly understood nicknames was adequate to identify the plaintiff in this context.
Procedural Issues with Service and Appearance

The defamation suit originated from allegedly defamatory Facebook and TikTok posts made in March 2025 concerning Kedah politics and KDA FC. Attempts to personally serve the statement of claim on the defendant twice in 2025 were unsuccessful. Subsequently, the plaintiff obtained permission for substituted service, which involved publishing a notice in a newspaper and posting it on the High Court's notice board. The defendant's failure to respond or appear in court after these service attempts resulted in the default judgment being entered against him on December 8, 2025.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What was the basis for the default judgment against the social media user?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends