JULY 13 — In the Federal Court case of Nomalan a/l Ramayah v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2026], there were altogether seven review applications before the apex court under Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 (RFC).
The decision of the apex court was delivered on April 22.
The next day, the apex court sat again to deliver its decision in the case of Mohd Helmi Anuar bin Mohd Kassim v Public Prosecutor and other applications [2026] on three related review applications under the same Rule 137 RFC.
It is concerning that there has been a growing number of applications for review under Rule 137 RFC in the first half of the year alone. This includes the review application by former Felda chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Isa Abdul Samad which was dismissed by the Federal Court on June 26.
The law on Rule 137 RFC is trite.
In the case of Golden Star & Ors v Ling Peek Hoe & Ors [2021], the Federal Court took time to discuss two applications for review under Rule 137 RFC (three applications in fact, the first having been withdrawn). Federal Court Judge Hasnah Hashim, delivering the judgment of the Court, said as follows:
“Under Rule 137 the Federal Court has the inherent power to review its own decision but this is exercised only in rare and exceptional circumstances. In order to succeed ... it must be shown that not only does the case fall within the stringent criteria as set out in the Asean Security case but the error must be so obvious that there was injustice to the party.”
The Asean Security case is the case of Asean Security Paper Mills Sdn Bhd v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd [2008] where President of the Court of Appeal Zaki Tun Azmi (as he then was) lucidly identified the so-called broad categories permitting review – that is:
(a) That there was a lack of quorum, for example the court was not duly constituted as two of the three presiding judges had retired (Chia Yan Tek & Anor v Ng Swee Kiat & Anor [2001]).
(b) The applicant had been denied the right to have his appeal heard on merits by the appellate court (Megat Najmuddin bin Dato Seri (Dr) Megat Khas v Bank Bumiputra (M) Bhd [2002]).
(c) Where the decision had been obtained by fraud or suppression of material evidence (MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato’ Vincent Tan Chee Yioun [2002]).
(d) Where the court making the decision was not properly constituted, was illegal or was lacking jurisdiction, but the lack of jurisdiction is not confined to the standing of the quorum that rendered the impugned decision (Allied Capital Sdn Bhd v Mohd Latiff bin Shah Mohd, & another application [2004]).
(e) Clear infringement of the law (Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Kobchai Sosothikul [2005]).
(f) It does not apply where the findings of this court are questioned, whether in law or on the facts (since these are matters of opinion which this court may disagree with its earlier panel) (Chan Yock Cher v Chan Teong Peng [2005]).
(g) Where an applicant under Rule 137 has not been heard by the court and yet through no fault of his, an order was inadvertently made as if he had been heard (Indian case of Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v Sukhraj Rai [1941]).
(h) Where bias had been established (English case of Taylor & Anor v Lawrence & Anor [2002]).
(i) Where it is demonstrated that the integrity of its earlier decision had been critically undermined, for example where the process had been corrupted and a wrong result might have been arrived at (English case of Re Uddin (a child) (serious injury: standard of proof) [2005]).
(j) Where the Federal Court allows an appeal which should have been consequentially dismissed because it accepted the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal (Joceline Tan Poh Choo & Ors v V Muthusamy [2007]).
The list is not exhaustive.
Accordingly, will the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) be tempted to apply for a review of the majority decision of the Federal Court upholding Muar MP Syed Saddiq Syed Abdul Rahman’s acquittal on four criminal charges linked to RM1 million in Armada funds?
Rule 137 RFC should be resorted to only in cases where a procedural injustice has been occasioned.
The cases should be exceptional.
Rule 137 RFC should not be abused.
There must be finality in litigation.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
