Published: Wednesday April 28, 2010 MYT 12:42:00 PM
BY M. MAGESWARI
Source of article here.
KUALA LUMPUR: Veteran actress Datuk Sarimah Ahmad has withdrawn her RM1mil civil suit against the publisher and printer of magazine The Malaysian Tatler for allegedly defaming her.
High Court judge Justice Balia Yusof Wahi struck out the suit upon an application by Sarimah’s lawyer N.Vanaja Dewi.
Justice Balia did not make any orders as to the costs when making his ruling in his chambers on Wednesday.
Lawyer Kimberly Lee acted for the magazine’s publisher while counsel T.Rubini represented its printer.
The 68-year-old silver screen icon had applied to withdraw the claim without a liberty to file afresh the civil action.
Sarimah had filed the suit alleging an article entitled Fast Amongst Equals in the August 2001 edition of the monthly magazine had defamed her private and religious aspects.
She named the magazine’s publisher, Illustrated Magazine Publishing Sdn Bhd and its printer Percetakan Osacar Sdn Bhd as defendants in her suit.
The plaintiff, who won Best Actress award for her role in Dia Ibuku, filed the suit on May 17, 2005.
The actress who made her name in films such as Ali Baba Bujang Lapok, Ibu Mertuaku (1962), Madu Tiga (1963), Tiga Abdul (1963) and Raja Bersiong (1968), claimed that the defamatory words in the article implied that she was not a trustworthy person and had a “loose” religious belief.
The article was also said to have meant that she was not sensitive, sad or emotional over the death of her late husband Yusuf Majid and an opportunist for marrying then husband Senator Dr Nordin Selat in a hurry.
In her statement of claim, Sarimah sought for damages, interests, costs and any relief deemed fit by the court.
She also sought for an injunction to restrain the defendants through their staff or agents from publishing or causing any defamatory words to be published against her.
She claimed that the words were published to boost the sales of the magazine which had affected her reputation.
In a statement of defence, both defendants denied that they had defamed her and that they relied on qualified privilge over matters of public interest.