The three judge panel of the appeals court found no merits in Khairul’s appeal.

“We are of the unanimous view after having decided to take the holistic approach to the case,” Justice Hamid Sultan Abu Backer said in delivering a brief decision.

Other judges in the panel were Justices Hasnah Mohammed Hashim and Harminder Singh Dhaliwal.

Khairul, also known as “Azwanbro”, was ordered to pay RM10,000 in costs.

Both Khairul and Rafizi were not present in court today.

Earlier in submissions, Rafizi’s lawyer William Leong had argued that there was a connection between Umno Youth and companies involved in the Mara properties purchases.

However, Khairul’s lawyer M Reza Hassan denied any ties between his client and those involved in the purchases.

Last year, the High Court dismissed Khairul’s suit against Rafizi on the grounds that the Umno leader had failed to prove his case on the balance of probabilities.

Justice S Nantha Balan, who heard the case, had ruled that Rafizi’s press statement on July 6, 2015 was merely asking those involved in the Mara scandal to explain their roles.

The judge said that the press statement did not paint Khairul as an individual who was corrupt and had abused his powers, adding that the Mara scandal was of public interest.

“He (Rafizi) has a public duty to call for an investigation into the scandal,” Justice Nantha had said.

He added the issue, brought into the limelight by Rafizi, was not “the figment of a fertile and vivid imagination”.

“There’s most certainly grave cause for concern on whether certain people had misused their positions to make considerable sums of money.”

Khairul sued Rafizi last year for purportedly claiming he was involved in the purchase of a property on 746 Swanston Street in Melbourne, Australia.

The purchase was made through Thrushcross Land Holdings Limited, a company owned by Mara Inc.

The deal reportedly resulted in “leakage” of RM63 million.

Khairul said Rafizi’s statement, published by online portals, had painted him as corrupt, dishonest and that he had acted in his own financial interest.