Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said it was also the view of the bench that specific points alleging coram failure, breach of natural justice or general injustice were without merit after interpreting the Courts of Judicature Act and having considered decided cases.

Tengku Maimun had, in August, led a five-member bench consisting of Zabariah Yusof, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim, Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal and Rhodzariah Bujang to deliberate on review motions by seven aggrieved parties in civil cases.

“It follows that all the seven review motions are unanimously dismissed with costs,” said Tengku Maimun, who delivered the 46-page judgment yesterday.

The seven wanted adverse decisions made in their cases to be set aside and appeals reheard.

One of the parties was the next of kin of victims in the Beijing-bound flight MH370 that went missing in 2014.

Then chief justice Md Raus Sharif in November 2017, who led a five-member bench, dismissed the appeal by five dependents to include Malaysia Airlines Bhd and the Royal Malaysian Air Force as parties to their suit.

The apex court verdict is expected to finally put to rest the validity of judgments and decisions by Raus and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, then second in line in the judicial ladder.

The aggrieved parties’ primary complaint was that the advice by Raus’ predecessor, Arifin Zakaria, to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to appoint the two 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.

Further, the seven complained that the two judges could not have occupied their positions on a proper interpretation of Article 122(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

It was also argued that Raus was not entitled to enlist the Federal Court panels which heard the appeals and to sit in these cases.

Both were appointed as chief justice and Court of Appeal president on April 1, 2017 and were supposed to retire on Aug 3, 2017 and Sept 27, 2017, respectively, upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 66 years plus six months.

The then Barisan Nasional government announced on July 7, 2017 that Raus would remain in office for another three years from Aug 4, while Zulkefli would remain in his post for another two years from Sept 28.

However, both resigned from office after the Pakatan Harapan government came into power following the May 9, 2018 general election.

Tengku Maimun said the court judicially recognised and applied the de facto doctrine as decided in the 2006 Federal Court decision in All Malayan Estates Staff Union v Rajasegaran & Ors.

She said the doctrine existed to preserve the integrity of judicial decisions for at least two reasons.

“Firstly, it insulates the de facto judge’s decision from collateral attack. Otherwise, unsuccessful private litigants will reserve the point as ammunition to attack the judge’s lack of authority as a ground to relitigate their case,” she said.

Doing so, she said, would be to put the prestige and integrity of justice and the justice system into jeopardy and disrepute.

Secondly, she said, even if a judge’s appointment is set aside de jure, all decisions made by the judge, either judicially or administratively, must be saved.

“It is our view that the de facto doctrine (the rule and its exceptions) applies equally to constitutional appointments,” she said.

Tengku Maimun said the doctrine seeks to avoid chaos and confusion that may be occasioned in the event the appointment of a decision-maker is found to be invalid and the stain that it might leave on the administration of justice.

“If the decisions of a superior court judge are not preserved by the de facto doctrine, the entire justice system might crumble to dust if such appointments are later deemed invalid appointments,” she added.