High Court records consent order compelling social media influencer Caprice to remove nine defamatory Instagram posts about transformation coach Murad Zaidi.
KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has recorded a consent order compelling social media influencer Caprice to immediately remove nine defamatory statements from his Instagram account targeting transformation coach Syed Mohammad Murad Syed Naseem.
The order was recorded before Judicial Commissioner Avinder Singh in chambers after Caprice, whose real name is Ariz Ramli, agreed to comply with the removal.
The 39-year-old influencer also undertook not to republish, redistribute, or disseminate any of the alleged statements in any form.
The nine alleged defamatory statements against Murad Zaidi were posted on Caprice’s Instagram between July and August 2025.
According to a draft consent order, Caprice agreed not to make any further remarks of a similar nature against Murad Zaidi, who is recognised for redefining elite fitness and corporate performance culture.
Following the undertaking, Murad Zaidi withdrew his interim injunction application against Caprice with no order as to costs.
The matter was confirmed by Murad Zaidi’s counsel Datuk M Reza Hassan and lawyer Megat Syazlee Mokhtar representing Caprice.
“The main defamation suit against the influencer will proceed, with the next case management fixed for Nov 17,” said M Reza.
Murad Zaidi filed the defamation suit on Aug 4, claiming Caprice had uploaded false and malicious content portraying him as involved in criminal activities.
The plaintiff claimed his reputation and dignity were damaged, noting the defendant commands significant influence with more than 1.5 million Instagram followers.
Murad Zaidi is seeking an injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing any defamatory postings against him on social media.
He is also seeking a public apology in video form to be published on all of the defendant’s social media platforms.
The plaintiff is seeking general, aggravated, and exemplary damages, costs, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Meanwhile, in his statement of defence, the defendant maintained that his remarks were made without malice. – Bernama
