PUTRAJAYA – The Court of Appeal has ruled that Malaysian courts have no power to compel defendants in defamation suits to issue apologies, striking down a High Court order that required two company founders to say sorry to a former agent.
Justice Datuk Ong Chee Kwan, delivering the judgment, stressed that an apology is inherently voluntary and cannot be judicially imposed.
“An apology, by its nature, is an expression of contrition and a matter of volition,” he said.
“To compel a party to apologise would be to require the court to dictate the content of speech and supervise its adequacy and sincerity.”
Ong noted that neither common law nor the Defamation Act 1957 provides remedies allowing courts to force apologies.
Kalysta case: Damages cut, apology order scrapped
The ruling came in the appeal of Kalysta Sdn Bhd founders Tan Sing How and Lai Phui Khae, who challenged a High Court decision that found them liable for defaming former general agent Ng Ze Xuan (Stella).
The dispute stemmed from seven statements published between July 16–24, 2021 via WeChat groups, a Zoom meeting and Instagram, accusing Stella of breaching company policies, dishonesty and misconduct.
The High Court had awarded Stella RM600,000 in damages and ordered an apology. The appellate court upheld the finding of defamation but set aside the apology order and reduced damages to RM100,000, ruling the trial judge erred in treating each publication as a separate defamatory act.
The three-member panel was chaired by Datuk Mohamed Zaini Mazlan.
Separate view: Retractions possible, not apologies
In a concurring judgment, Justice K. Muniandy agreed that a scripted apology could not stand but clarified that courts do retain jurisdiction in certain contexts.
He said apologies may form part of settlements, with courts recording consent judgments that incorporate such terms. Superior courts also have inherent jurisdiction to ensure complete justice.
“The court will not force a party to say they are sorry, but they can be legally compelled to declare what is true,” he said.
Muniandy added that compliance with such orders concerns verification of text, not sincerity. – June 10, 2026