JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] On 19 August 2020, we heard seven review motions filed pursuant to rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 ('RFC 1995'). After the close of very lengthy submissions which took up more than this court's usual sitting time, we reserved judgment. We now deliver this unanimous judgment upon much consideration.
[2] The applicants in motions 08(RS)-12-10-2018(B) and 08(RS)-13-11- 2018(W) are Yakin Tenggara Sdn Bhd and Datuk Lim Sue Beng, respectively. Their motions are against the decision of the Federal Court delivered on 10 October 2018. We shall refer to this set of motions as the 'Yakin Tenggara Motions'.
[3] The applicants in motions 08(RS)-3-08-2018(W), 08(RS)-6-08-2018(W) and 08(RS)-7-08-2018(W) are Yong Tshu Khin and Annie Quah Lay Nah and their three collective review motions are against the decision of the Federal Court delivered on 9 July 2018. This set of motions will be referred to as the 'Yong Tshu Khin Motions'.
[4] For motion 08(RS)-14-11-2018(A), the applicant is one Tan Boon Lee. His complaint is against the order of the Federal Court dated 26 September 2017. We shall refer to this motion as 'Tan Boon Lee's Motion'.
[5] The final motion 08(RS)-17-12-2018(W) is filed by five applicants, namely, Tan Wei Hong, Tan Wei Jie, Tan Hun Khong, Lai Chew Lai and Chuan Hung Chien, against the order of the Federal Court dated 28 November 2017 and the grounds of judgment for which is dated 22 May 2018. We shall refer to the motion as 'Tan Wei Hong's Motion.'
[6] All the seven review motions raised a common point and further specific points peculiar to their circumstances.
[7] The common point alleges coram failure, in sum, that the appointments of Md Raus Sharif as Chief Justice and of Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin as President of the Court of Appeal (collectively, the 'two Judges') were respectively invalid. Arguments were advanced to the effect that the advice given by the outgoing Chief Justice, Arifin Zakaria, to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to appoint the two Judges as Additional Judges of the Federal Court was invalid because such advice may only be given by a sitting Chief Justice to take effect during his tenure, and that in any event, the two Judges could not have occupied their respective positions as Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal as Additional Judges of the Federal Court on a proper interpretation of art 122(1A) of the Federal Constitution ('FC'). Accordingly, it was argued that Raus Sharif CJ was not entitled to empanel the Federal Court panels which heard the appeals and in any event, that the two Judges were not entitled to sit in these cases (if they sat).