- One million residents in Selangor, KL to face water disruption from Tuesday
- 'Fake' interpreter at Mandela event claims illness
- Bad weather forces emergency landing for helicopter in Bintulu
- Queen Elizabeth went nuts over nibbles, court told
- Anger over Mandela death 'picture'
- Chong Wei cruises to victory
- Filthy, disabled children found at grim Australian incest farm
- Interpreter at Mandela event: I was hallucinating
- Manhunt launched for bogus interpreter at Mandela’s memorial service
- PM launches new-look Proton Perdana as govt's official car
- Chinese flyby of asteroid shows space rock is "rubble"
- 3 Japanese firms keen to participate in S'pore-KL rail link project: PM
- IKEA recalls lamp following death of child
- Malaysia lose to Thailand, Myanmar in sepak takraw
- HOCKEY: Juniors come good More
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court today rejected an appeal by actress Nadia Mustafa over the Sessions Court's ruling in awarding actress Lisdawati RM50,000 in damages in a defamation suit against Nadia.
In his ruling, Judge Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim held that the decision by the Sessions Court judge was correct, after listening to witnesses during the trial.
"She applied the correct law based on facts presented before her. There is no reason for this court to interfere with the decision (Sessions Court)," the judge said.
He ordered Nadia, whose real name is Siti Naziyah Sheikh Mustafa, 35, to pay legal costs RM3,000 to Lisdawati.
Both, Lisdawati, whose real name is Nisdawati Nazaruddin, 33 and Nadia were not present in court today.
Lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo represented Lisdawati while Nadia was represented by Siti Julaini Mohd Shahar.
On Oct 31, last year, Lisdawati was awarded RM50,000 in damages by the Sessions Court judge after she won her case in a defamation suit against Nadia.
In the suit filed on April 21, 2010, Lisdawati claimed that Nadia had maliciously given an interview which contained defamatory words, to journalist Hanif Abdul Ghani of the "Media Hiburan" magazine.
Lisdawati claimed that that the interview was held in January 2005 and an article was published in the magazine's Jan 8 - 14, 2005 edition.
She claimed the words in the article were meant to mean that she had borrowed money from Nadia and failed to settle the money.
Nadia, in her defence statement dated May 18, 2010, claimed that the article was not defamatory, and it was intended to get the debtor to pay the debt. Bernama