Rafidah Ibrahim Given Seven Days To Pay Rm280 000 Damages Owed To Entrepreneur

---

 


KUALA LUMPUR: An entrepreneur has issued a seven-day demand to celebrity and activist Rafidah Ibrahim to pay RM281,200 in damages to him and his company, following a successful lawsuit.
On July 31, the High Court allowed the suit filed by Datuk Haris Embong, 48, and his company, Arisprop Holdings Sdn Bhd, as plaintiffs, and ordered the defendant, Rafidah, 39, to pay the stipulated sum.
In a statement issued on Monday (Sept 22), Haris' legal firm Izral Partnership said that a formal demand notice was served upon Rafidah's then-legal firm in Shah Alam on Aug 20, 2024. However, neither Rafidah nor any of her representatives have settled the claim.
The firm further stated that on Sept 19, another formal demand was served upon her new legal representatives in Gombak.
"We have been instructed by our client to demand that Rafidah remit the sum of RM281,200 within seven days from the date of this letter (Sept 19). Failure to do so will compel our client to pursue all necessary enforcement proceedings without further notice," the statement read.
The legal firm further stated that its client had instructed to demand payment as per the High Court order, comprising RM100,000 in damages to be paid to Haris; RM150,000 in damages to be paid to Arisprop Holdings Sdn Bhd; costs of RM30,000; and a fee of RM1,200.
In a separate statement, Haris said Rafidah had been given substantial time to settle the claim but had yet to comply.
"This claim is essential to vindicate my reputation and that of my company against the defamatory allegations," he stated.
Haris filed the suit in Oct 2021, claiming that Rafidah had made two separate Facebook posts on Sept 21 and Oct 18, 2021, concerning allegations of refusing to pay for her services.
In his judgment, Judicial Commissioner Dr John Lee Kien How @ Mohd Johan Lee held that Rafidah's second post was defamatory as the language used had exposed the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, or contempt.
The court further found that the first post, though capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, was not in fact defamatory in the context presented.
The court also dismissed the defendant's counterclaim against both plaintiffs, which had sought, among other things, the sum of RM4,000 for alleged unpaid wages for August 2021 and RM3,550 in agreed facility costs under the defendant's contract of engagement. – Bernama

---