After a nine-year wait, a former freelance journalist finally got his day in court to strike out a RM4.5 million defamation suit filed against him by the National Union of Plantation Workers.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court fixed this Thursday to hear the application by M Varatharaju, 60.

The trial proper of the defamation suit, arising from an article written by Varatharaju in a Tamil daily, has not been heard yet. It has been adjourned three times during that period.

In the said article published in the Thina Murasu daily in June 1998, Varatharaju had written about the disparity in the wage structure between plantation workers and union leaders.

Following this, the union and three of its officials filed the defamation suit against Varatharaju on July 16, 1998, claiming damages amounting to RM4.5 million.

They also named the editor and publisher of Thina Murasu in their suit. Thina Murasu is no longer in publication now.

According to court documents seen by malaysiakini, immediately after filing the suit, the plaintiffs obtained an injunction on July 20, 1998 against Varatharaju and the daily to stop them from making further statements regarding the wage disparity.

After this, the plaintiffs had stalled on the matter with no fresh development.

Now Varatharaju wants the court to strike out the suit with costs. The plaintiffs however have filed a counter application to contest Varatharaju's application to dismiss the defamation suit.

Undue hardship

In his affidavit in support of striking out the application, Varatharaju said the long delay in hearing the case has caused uncertainty and undue hardship to him.

The document also stated that the plaintiffs had failed to get instructions from the court since 2000 on how to proceed with the case.

Similarly the plaintiffs have also failed to apply for an application for continuation of this case after the lapse of the time period for them to pursue this action, added Varatharaju in his affidavit.

"The case has been hanging over me for such a long time. They should either proceed or just let the court hear my application for dismissal," he said when met today.

"The delay has caused uncertainty and undue hardship for me. It won't be easy for me to go and look for witnesses after nine years to defend my case. And I am not to be blamed for the delay," he added.

The plaintiffs' lawyers on record were not available for comment today.