Lawyers call for action on judgements before retirement

The Chief Justice, Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat has been urged to take action on Federal Court judgements.

PETALING JAYA: A lawyer has urged Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat to ensure that judgements of a full Federal Court bench are delivered before the retirement of the judges involved.

The lawyer, Syed Iskandar Syed Jaafar Al Mahdzar, said litigants have legitimate expectation to know the legal opinions of the bench.

“The CJ must ensure the full bench delivers their legal opinions, especially in civil cases, because they are actually interpreting the law in a new situation and setting a judicial precedent,” he said. If possible, judges due for retirement should be excluded from hearing such cases, he said, as the bench could take a longer time to deliver its verdict.

In recent Federal Court cases, the number of judges who delivered rulings were not equivalent to the number who heard the cases a few months earlier.

A nine member bench sits to hear constitutional issues, seven in public interest cases and five for normal appeal cases. However, the number is reduced by one or two following the retirement of judges.

In an appeal recently, about whether a Muslim child conceived out of wedlock can carry the father’s name, a fresh bench had to be convened to rehear the matter as only one of the seven original judges remained in office while the others had either resigned or retired.

Under the law, a minimum of two judges may deliver a judgement in the absence of others.

However, another lawyer, R Kengadharan, said that provision should only come into play from unforseen circumstances such as the death of a judge, or if one had been found to be mentally incapacitated due to illness.

He said the Courts of Judicature Act could be amended to disallow a reduced number of judges delivering judgment, unless the parties involved consent.

“I have heard from retired judges of incidents where the minority was able to convince the majority to allow or dismiss an appeal,” he said.

Lawyer A Srimurugan said minority judgements coming from the Federal Court had value even if litigants lost their cases due to majority verdicts.

“Sometimes the argument advanced by the minority is more convincing compared with that of the majority. Lawyers can revisit the case and argue that the legal position advanced by the minority is correct,” he said.

Srimurugan said this happened very frequently in the United Kingdom and India and also in Malaysia, though on rare occasions. - FMT