Suddenly the term "Felda settlers" has taken on a new dimension. They braved threats - from a politician and a federal agency that is supposed to look after their welfare - not to sue them.

The same agency had cheated them and this was exposed yesterday when the Federal Court awarded the settlers damages amounting to RM11 million.

The award highlighted the proud legacy of the Felda Kemahang 3 settlers from Tanah Merah, Kelantan, who sued the Federal Land Development Authority (Felda) in 2002 for cheating them for six years over the extraction quality of their palm fruit.

Although Felda chairperson Yusof Nor was quoted by several newspapers today as saying that the award was a result of a technicality brought about by the non-attendance of its lawyer at an earlier hearing, one cannot deny the findings of retired Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram and current judge Justice James Foong in their judgment.

Writing his last judgment before retiring, Sri Ram noted that the Felda solicitors had been aware of the hearing date.

"In fact, solicitors for the applicants (settlers) took the unusual but cautious step of writing to the respondents' solicitors, reminding them of the trial date.

"Despite this, neither counsel nor solicitors for the respondents were present," said the respected judge in the Jan 19 decision.

Federal Court judge Foong, then sitting as Court of Appeal judge, had said in his decision that Felda existed to assist the settlers.

NONE "Instead, we have here a situation of the first defendant (Felda) cheating the settlers. In a position of authority over the plaintiffs in the allotment of land in the said scheme, Felda had, after the suit was filed, threatened to evict the plaintiffs from the scheme for pursuing the action.

"Such intimidation weighs against Felda. The third defendant (Felda Palm Industries Sdn Bhd) is no better since it is associated with or is part of Felda.

"Given the circumstances and having taken into account all other relevant factors into consideration, we are of the view that the trial judge's award of this amount is justified," Justice Foong ruled in the majority decision.

All this is contained in the written judgments kept in the court annals.

These are the judges' findings. If what Yusof said is correct, why is Felda now facing a slew of similar suits from settlers, echoing claims similar to that made by the Felda Kemahang 3 settlers?

The Kemahang 3 settlers filed their suit in 2002, accusing Felda of understating the quality of their oil palm fruits from 1996 to 2002, causing them to suffer losses. 

Lawyer Yusfarizal Yusof, who represented the Kemahang settlers, said Yusof's assertion was wrong as the High Court judge had also heard the testimony of witnesses and had evaluated the facts before deciding the case on its merits.

Felda has to buck up

NONE Lawyer and PKR politician Sivarasa Rasiah, representing 766 settlers in Felda Serting and Raja Alias (right) , who had filed a RM200 million suit against Felda earlier this month, said the statutory body must ensure the original purpose of its establishment, that is to assist the Malays, is adhered to.

"It has to return to the original objective of its setting up and not try to shortchange the settlers, as they have claimed in the suit," Sivarasa said.

"I think Najib, who was present at Felda Serting last night (Wednesday night), may have realised this and is trying to win over those who had filed the suit.

"However, I do not think the settlers would be impressed by the efforts made by Najib," he said.

In the Felda Serting and Raja Alias case, the settlers claimed they were paid based on an oil extraction grade that averaged 18.9 percent, lower than the Malaysian Palm Oil Board's recommended 22 percent.

The settlers had sent their random samples of the fruit to two different independent laboratories and found the results showed the much higher rate of 24 and 25.5 percent, a difference of 6 to 6.5 percent over the grading by Felda Palm Industries.

johor labis felda settlers court case 120609 01 Besides the Felda Serting and Raja Alias settlers who filed their suit this year, another 400 settlers in Felda Maokil, Labis (left) , had last year filed a RM71.8 million suit against the federal authority in Johor Baru on similar grounds.

PKR Felda Bureau chief Suhaimi Said was quoted to have said more suits would follow, including in Najib's home state of Pahang.

Suhaimi said the settlers had lodged police reports as far back as 10 years ago, but they did not know anyone who could offer them help.

Lawyer Wan Rohimi Wan Daud, who represented the Felda Kemahang and Felda Maokil settlers, also expects more settlers to come forward to take legal action.

Felda will be better prepared

Second generation settlers have also come forward to question Felda for diverging from its original purpose and intent.

bersih ec constitutional putrajaya 181207 sivarasa Sivarasa (right) said he expects more battles following yesterday's triumph  by the Felda Kemahang settlers.

"Of course, following yesterday's victory I think Felda will come better prepared. I think we are in for a tougher time in the courts."

"But we are prepared for any eventuality and buoyed by the success of the Felda Kemahang 3 settlers, we will help the settlers to protect their rights," he said.

Sivarasa said the settlers have toiled and worked hard in their plantations, so they deserved to be adequately remunerated. There should have been no shortchanging of efforts as this was a basic right.

No more review

Another lesson to be learnt from the Felda Kemahang 3 case on the legal side is that there should be no review of a finding made by another panel of the Federal Court.

In the past, many lawyers had argued for the use of Rule 137 of the Federal Court on the court's inherent jurisdiction, which states:

"For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to hear any application or to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court."

palace of justice istana kehakiman The ruling yesterday affirmed an earlier decision in the Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II case to get documents, that the right to review is limited as the Federal Court cannot overturn the decision of an earlier panel.

This was affirmed by Court of Appeal President Alauddin Md Sheriff, sitting as Federal Court judge in yesterday's decision, in which he ruled that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the review, especially after another panel led by Chief Justice Zaki Azmi had arrived at a decision.

With this precedent being set, no decision of the apex court, the highest court in the land, can be subjected to review.

In the past, the Federal Court had exercised its power to review the Asean Security Paper Mill Sdn Bhd case, and following that a slew of cases were filed in attempts to have court decisions reviewed.

But Justice Hashim Yusoff, who also sat in yesterday's proceedings, pointed out that there would have been no end to the issue if yesterday's review had been allowed.

Felda to take action against legal firm